I downloaded this plug-in (demo) from Antares and played arround with it for a while. It seems quite realistic to me, but I haven't heard that many mics yet. I just knew the sound of an AKG and a Shure and both sounded pretty real to me. What is your oppinion on this plug-in (if any of you used it before)? If it really does exactly what it says then there would be no need to buy all those expesive mics. Having just one that they have the "print" for would emulate all the other. The Antares team says they'll emulate any mic if the owner is willing to send it to them for 5 days. Also, I have a question for Alan Hyatt: would you consider sending Antares the C1?
Antares Mic Modeler
- Thread starter Rthodox
- Start date
darrin_h2000
Banned
Try Neumann U87, Thats the mic the C1 will sound like.
Generally, the folks at Antares want to borrow mics that sell in the $5,000 to $20,000+ range to add to their database of emulations, since most people aren't going to use the Mic Modeler to make their Manley Gold Reference sound like an SM57.
The principle of digital sound processing (DSP) is only as good as the signal chain. What that means is that if your overall system is fairly modest, DSP can make your music sound much better. On a $1,000 stereo, for instance, the Antares may actually make an SM58 sound quite a bit like a Neumann U 67.
The principle breaks down when you get into high-end recording and playback systems. At a certain level, you don't want to "hear" ANYTHING that's been done to the musical information. The manipulation that improved the sound on a thousand dollar stereo greatly degrades the sound of a $10,000 stereo.
So within its limitations, the Antares is a wonderful application of DSP.
However, buying a Studio Projects C-1 for $229 delivered isn't the same as trying to make an SM58 sound "like" a Neumann U87ai. Instead, the C-1 emulates the physical and electronic characteristics of the more expensive mic, producing a sound that is NOT the same, but may have some similarly pleasing overall qualities.
These represent two completely different paradigms. The one purports to correct deficiencies in the signal by manipulating the sound in the digital domain. It's a "patch" put on top of something that is inherently weak. The other is the creation of an instrument -- a source device -- that for 15% of the cost provides 85% of the performance of the original.
Which you think is the better deal is up to you. Both can be appropriate, depending on your market.
Best wishes,
Mark H.
The principle of digital sound processing (DSP) is only as good as the signal chain. What that means is that if your overall system is fairly modest, DSP can make your music sound much better. On a $1,000 stereo, for instance, the Antares may actually make an SM58 sound quite a bit like a Neumann U 67.
The principle breaks down when you get into high-end recording and playback systems. At a certain level, you don't want to "hear" ANYTHING that's been done to the musical information. The manipulation that improved the sound on a thousand dollar stereo greatly degrades the sound of a $10,000 stereo.
So within its limitations, the Antares is a wonderful application of DSP.
However, buying a Studio Projects C-1 for $229 delivered isn't the same as trying to make an SM58 sound "like" a Neumann U87ai. Instead, the C-1 emulates the physical and electronic characteristics of the more expensive mic, producing a sound that is NOT the same, but may have some similarly pleasing overall qualities.
These represent two completely different paradigms. The one purports to correct deficiencies in the signal by manipulating the sound in the digital domain. It's a "patch" put on top of something that is inherently weak. The other is the creation of an instrument -- a source device -- that for 15% of the cost provides 85% of the performance of the original.
Which you think is the better deal is up to you. Both can be appropriate, depending on your market.
Best wishes,
Mark H.
Blue Bear Sound
New member
A most excellent way of putting that Mark...
Bruce
Bruce
Eurythmic
majordomo plasticomo
This is about how I feel - uh, but my stereo is a LOT closer to $1,000 than $10,000.
I haven't played with Mic Modeler that much. It might be of more use in more capable hands. But to my ear, when I use it, it can be a nice tool to "warm up" my vocal if it sounds a bit cold. I have a high voice. Other than that, I don't notice much of a difference. I don't find that it changes the basic character of the original recording at all.
I sure HOPE the real U87 doesn't sound so much like my SM-57.
Blue Bear Sound
New member
But there's also something to be said for Ametth's concise brevity! 
And both of you were right!
Bruce
And both of you were right!
Bruce
I like the mic modeler a lot. It's great for just experimenting with different "flavors".
It might not give me million dollar mic sounds, but it definitely gives me a million mic sounds to choose from. pretty cool.
anyway, that reminds me.. I need to check to see if any new models are available for download. thanks for the reminder!
It might not give me million dollar mic sounds, but it definitely gives me a million mic sounds to choose from. pretty cool.
anyway, that reminds me.. I need to check to see if any new models are available for download. thanks for the reminder!
Thanks all, especially Mark. Although in part I agree with what some of you are saying, I don't quite understand why a mic's character cannot be copied. Isn't it just an EQ curve? This probably sounded stupid to your ears, but that's what I thought. Correct me if I'm wrong.
From what I read, the mic modeler first makes the source mic a linear one and then it gives it the character of the target mic. From this I drew the conclusion that it's all in the eq.
one,
Rthodox
From what I read, the mic modeler first makes the source mic a linear one and then it gives it the character of the target mic. From this I drew the conclusion that it's all in the eq.
one,
Rthodox
Well put.
I have read that it acts as a combination exciter / eq.
Basically, I have found only one good use for it, and that is as a "shortcut" eq plugin. Example: I recorded some accoustic guitar tracks using a Shure SM-7. Because of the larger diaphragm (I assume), it gave the guitar a much fuller sound -- something I THOUGHT I wanted at the time. Later, I decided I didn't like how the sound fit in the mix, and needed a brighter sound. So I pulled out the autotune, and selected the Neumann 184 as the mic I wanted to model.
Did it make my large-diphragm dynamic sound like a small-diaphragm condenser? Nope. But it did brighten the sound a bit without having to mess with the eq for a half-hour.
I have read that it acts as a combination exciter / eq.
Basically, I have found only one good use for it, and that is as a "shortcut" eq plugin. Example: I recorded some accoustic guitar tracks using a Shure SM-7. Because of the larger diaphragm (I assume), it gave the guitar a much fuller sound -- something I THOUGHT I wanted at the time. Later, I decided I didn't like how the sound fit in the mix, and needed a brighter sound. So I pulled out the autotune, and selected the Neumann 184 as the mic I wanted to model.
Did it make my large-diphragm dynamic sound like a small-diaphragm condenser? Nope. But it did brighten the sound a bit without having to mess with the eq for a half-hour.
Theoretically, DSP should go far beyond matching an equalization curve, although I don't know anything about the inner workings of the Antares unit. If it were as easy as setting EQ, then the curves would be published all over the web, and no one would buy the Mic Modeler.
Despite my objections, DSP has astonishing potential, because it can emulate analog changes in ways that analog cannot, including subtle changes in phasing and impedance (I'm not knowledgable about electronics, so someone who is might like to explain this better than I can). A limited but useful example is Sony's Super-Bit Mapping, which greatly improved the sound of commercial digital recordings without having to increase the number of bits or the oversampling rate.
Have you ever seen one of those mechanical shape-copiers at the hardware store? By lining up dozens of small, stiff rods in a secure holder, you can press it against an object (say a turned piece of wood), and then set your lathe to exactly match the curves. It's a cool, cheap, accurate tool.
With certain CAD units, the same can be done in three dimensions by marking enough spots on the surface for the computer to "model" the entire object (even if that "object" is a person in motion). This is the "CG" used extensively in the movies.
The potential of DSP is that it doesn't have to UNDERSTAND the characteristics that it is emulating in order to apply them to another source.
Imagine, for instance, that someone's grandfather heard Caruso sing in person many times in the early part of the 20th Century. For argument, imagine as well that this person's hearing is still excellent (a bit of a stretch, I realize).
Then one day grandfather hears a new tenor whose vocal character is as close to Caruso's as any he's heard in the last 80 years. He recognizes it at once. The singer may be young, and his voice will change as he matures, but for now, he sounds "like" Caruso.
With DSP and enough computing power, *theoretically* an engineer could take the old wax cylinder recordings of Caruso and apply the characteristics of someone with a similar voice, reproducing the original recordings as close to what was actually heard as the new tenor's voice really is to Caruso's. That's too big an "if" for many people, but it underscores the potential. There will always be those who prefer the direct-to-wax recordings for their uncluttered purity.
(This example was done -- not well -- in the mid-80s, when the desktop computers we use today would fill an entire room.)
It's still a matter of "source" versus "signal," of course. Perhaps someday DSP will enable my *recorded* singing voice to sound *like* Caruso instead of gravel under foot. But do we all want to go around talking like James Earl Jones? What about the subtle differences by which we establish our very sense of "self"?
These are philosophical questions, of course, not practical considerations. If you're recording a great singer who always hits a certain note flat, there's nothing wrong with using a pitch corrector to fix that note. If the Antares subjectively improves the sound of your recordings, that is enough justification for its existence right there, whether it is accurately emulating a different microphone or not.
In the 60s, some engineers would splice together 30 takes of a difficult piano concerto to get a technically perfect take. Is that valid? Glenn Gould thought so; many others thought it was a crock.
There is also a steeply rising perceptual curve. When Edison first introduced his wax-cylinder grammophone, otherwise sane and normal people declared publicly that the sound was indistinguishable from the actual event. How could this be? Well, they had never heard a recording before.
When I first heard the Yamaha DX-7 in the mid-eighties through a guitar amp, I believed that the "orchestral chimes" sounded exactly like the real thing. That seems naive and humorous now.
The compact disc (actually 16 bit / 44.1 khz oversampling) sounds inherently terrible, yet how many of us who had $100 turntables thought that was the case when CDs were first introduced? Until we *hear* music recorded at 24/96 or better, we have no idea how much better digital recording can be than the "Red Book" standard.
Which brings me back to whether the Antares, or any DSP unit that regular people can afford at this time, is "good enough" to stand in for a better source instrument. Some will argue we should archive the cleanest recordings we can, because each year will see improvements in after-the-fact processing that can always be applied later.
Finally, and I hope some of you can answer this, why do some musicians and engineers today want to emulate the "sound of the Beattles"? I understand that they were talented composers, famous celebrities and multi-millionaires, but when I stick one of their recordings on a good stereo system today, the SOUND (not the music) is dreadful. Does anyone really think that 60s mics and consoles sound better than what we can do today? I'm really asking -- there may be legitimate considerations of which I am completely unaware. And I truly like the sound of the U67, for instance -- what would be so difficult about duplicating it today?
Rest in peace, George Harrison. I'm sorry to lose another icon of my youth.
Kind regards to all,
Mark H.
Despite my objections, DSP has astonishing potential, because it can emulate analog changes in ways that analog cannot, including subtle changes in phasing and impedance (I'm not knowledgable about electronics, so someone who is might like to explain this better than I can). A limited but useful example is Sony's Super-Bit Mapping, which greatly improved the sound of commercial digital recordings without having to increase the number of bits or the oversampling rate.
Have you ever seen one of those mechanical shape-copiers at the hardware store? By lining up dozens of small, stiff rods in a secure holder, you can press it against an object (say a turned piece of wood), and then set your lathe to exactly match the curves. It's a cool, cheap, accurate tool.
With certain CAD units, the same can be done in three dimensions by marking enough spots on the surface for the computer to "model" the entire object (even if that "object" is a person in motion). This is the "CG" used extensively in the movies.
The potential of DSP is that it doesn't have to UNDERSTAND the characteristics that it is emulating in order to apply them to another source.
Imagine, for instance, that someone's grandfather heard Caruso sing in person many times in the early part of the 20th Century. For argument, imagine as well that this person's hearing is still excellent (a bit of a stretch, I realize).
Then one day grandfather hears a new tenor whose vocal character is as close to Caruso's as any he's heard in the last 80 years. He recognizes it at once. The singer may be young, and his voice will change as he matures, but for now, he sounds "like" Caruso.
With DSP and enough computing power, *theoretically* an engineer could take the old wax cylinder recordings of Caruso and apply the characteristics of someone with a similar voice, reproducing the original recordings as close to what was actually heard as the new tenor's voice really is to Caruso's. That's too big an "if" for many people, but it underscores the potential. There will always be those who prefer the direct-to-wax recordings for their uncluttered purity.
(This example was done -- not well -- in the mid-80s, when the desktop computers we use today would fill an entire room.)
It's still a matter of "source" versus "signal," of course. Perhaps someday DSP will enable my *recorded* singing voice to sound *like* Caruso instead of gravel under foot. But do we all want to go around talking like James Earl Jones? What about the subtle differences by which we establish our very sense of "self"?
These are philosophical questions, of course, not practical considerations. If you're recording a great singer who always hits a certain note flat, there's nothing wrong with using a pitch corrector to fix that note. If the Antares subjectively improves the sound of your recordings, that is enough justification for its existence right there, whether it is accurately emulating a different microphone or not.
In the 60s, some engineers would splice together 30 takes of a difficult piano concerto to get a technically perfect take. Is that valid? Glenn Gould thought so; many others thought it was a crock.
There is also a steeply rising perceptual curve. When Edison first introduced his wax-cylinder grammophone, otherwise sane and normal people declared publicly that the sound was indistinguishable from the actual event. How could this be? Well, they had never heard a recording before.
When I first heard the Yamaha DX-7 in the mid-eighties through a guitar amp, I believed that the "orchestral chimes" sounded exactly like the real thing. That seems naive and humorous now.
The compact disc (actually 16 bit / 44.1 khz oversampling) sounds inherently terrible, yet how many of us who had $100 turntables thought that was the case when CDs were first introduced? Until we *hear* music recorded at 24/96 or better, we have no idea how much better digital recording can be than the "Red Book" standard.
Which brings me back to whether the Antares, or any DSP unit that regular people can afford at this time, is "good enough" to stand in for a better source instrument. Some will argue we should archive the cleanest recordings we can, because each year will see improvements in after-the-fact processing that can always be applied later.
Finally, and I hope some of you can answer this, why do some musicians and engineers today want to emulate the "sound of the Beattles"? I understand that they were talented composers, famous celebrities and multi-millionaires, but when I stick one of their recordings on a good stereo system today, the SOUND (not the music) is dreadful. Does anyone really think that 60s mics and consoles sound better than what we can do today? I'm really asking -- there may be legitimate considerations of which I am completely unaware. And I truly like the sound of the U67, for instance -- what would be so difficult about duplicating it today?
Rest in peace, George Harrison. I'm sorry to lose another icon of my youth.
Kind regards to all,
Mark H.
Chessrock,
That's precisely why I raise these issues, even though they may not seem appropriate to the thread. Source vs. signal, and the blurring of the line between them. The Antares is a crude tool in comparison to what DSP and computers in general will be able to do in another 10 years.
Remember the 70s? Disco nearly killed muscianship.
Mark H.
That's precisely why I raise these issues, even though they may not seem appropriate to the thread. Source vs. signal, and the blurring of the line between them. The Antares is a crude tool in comparison to what DSP and computers in general will be able to do in another 10 years.
Remember the 70s? Disco nearly killed muscianship.
Mark H.
I think the mic modeller is a great tool for any homerecordist with out a large collection of mics. I dont believe it makes a 57 sound like a U87. But gives it the natural characteristics and color of the U87. I mostly use it because i do not have a AKG D112 kick drum mic. Instead of got a Nady that is decent, but not the best. When i use the modeller on the kick recorded with the nady, it give it that D112 punch characteristic, and i mean it really changes the characteristic or color of the sound. Its meant for people who are only looking for a different color and characteristic, not to make a bad recording sound good.
Darnold
Darnold