Antares Microphone Modeler

  • Thread starter Thread starter bongolation
  • Start date Start date
bongolation

bongolation

New member
Has anyone used this software yet? I'm considering it, once I figure out what platforms it will and won't work on. I've read one review, but it was not useful.

Would appreciate any real-world experience anyone has with this.

If this has already been discussed, please direct me to the thread.

Thanks!
 
Yeah I have used it and actually have a copy of it right now at home. I don't know man. I can't really tell the difference at all. I know it's doing something cause the wave form changes when I apply the plug in. But that's about it, if it did do something then it was subtile. I haven't really touched this thing in a long time. The only thing I can definitely hear different is when I apply the saturation or tube slider (i forgot what it was called). I get a warmer and louder tone when I raise it.
 
I don't know but I'd guess all it does is match the EQ patterns of various mics, which would in many cases be a pretty subtle change. Of course, a lot depends on the EQ pattern of the mic you're using to get the signal to begin with. Does it take that into account?
 
>Does it take that into account?

Yes it does. The characteristics of many microphones are modeled as both sources and destinations. I want my Sm57 to sound like a 414, that sort of thing.

Having played with the demo some time ago, I think I would like to try the outboard box instead. Actually, I'd rather save my money for more mics.

Russ
 
Yeah, I guess the problem with the whole concept is that 0 times X equals 0. In other words, if you're using a mic that cuts off below 40 hertz and you're modeling a mic that goes down to 20 hertz, you can boost the EQ between 20 and 40 all you want, you ain't gonna get no signal there. Likewise in the upper frequencies. For the vast middle ground, if you're boosting a frequency range that's weak on your mic, you're boosting the noise in that range too, which you wouldn't be doing if you had the original mic you were trying to model. In other words, there's a reason people buy these expensive mics despite the fact that multiband EQ has been around for years. The mic has certain sonic characteristics that you just can't fake or model.

Yup, that's what I think about the whole ding danged thing right there.

Pretty much
 
The premise requires that a good and consistent (i.e. "expensive") microphone be used on the front end. If the "from" microphone is inconsistent with their model of it, the final effect won't be right. The test review I read of it only used very high-end microphones and compared the true originals with the modeled versions rendered from the software. The reviewer was fairly impressed.

I think Zoetrope's analysis is a bit simplistic and unfairly dismissive; there's more to this than fiddling with a nine-band graphic equalizer on a PA board, though there is a similarity in concept. I should wonder if he had experimented with it himself or not, a specific request in my original question.

The true practical advantage of this software is - supposedly - its ability to get great microphone sounds by quickly and easily invoking many profile overlays over any microphone "X" rather than the technical perfection of the modeling of microphone "X" into microphone "Z."
 
I think Zoetrope's analysis is a bit simplistic and unfairly dismissive; there's more to this than fiddling with a nine-band graphic equalizer on a PA board, though there is a similarity in concept. I should wonder if he had experimented with it himself or not, a specific request in my original question
Click to expand...
Yeah, but didn't you like my 0 times X equals 0 thingy? Hell, I did.

Well, I haven't experimented with it myself, but I suspect many people wanting to use this sort of software don't have the "good and consistent (i.e. "expensive") microphone" that you would want at the front of the choo choo train. I also suspect that EQ is mostly what this thing is all about. There's only so much you can do to a sound wave to make one mic sound like another. What else it does, I can't imagine. If you know, let us know.

Anyway, I'm not saying the software is worthless, I'm just saying it ain't going to make a crappy mic sound good. I don't need to test the software to say that, do I?
 
zoetrope said:
Anyway, I'm not saying the software is worthless, I'm just saying it ain't going to make a crappy mic sound good. I don't need to test the software to say that, do I?
Click to expand...
Well, it would be more sporting if you had. :D

Much hinges on what you call a "crappy" mic and where the cutoff is. I don't suppose that there's much you can do to make a real studio vocal mic out of you computer's webcam mic or a Nady Starpower, but I believe that you could certainly expect some impressive improvement with lower-end studio microphones such as the less expensive AKGs, Audio-Technicas, Oktavas, etc. Frequently the differences between these microphones and the much more expensive ones do not represent a great technical margin.

While comparative EQing and subsequent back-adjustment is at the heart of much of this, my point is that you can get a lot more adjustments working and more meaningfully as algorithms in a program than as physical pots in a rack-mount unit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top