mic emulation/modeling - what mic should be my "starting point"?

  • Thread starter Thread starter dafduc
  • Start date Start date
dafduc

dafduc

New member
Hi all.

I just went nuts filling my mic closet, but I have a question about some of the mic modeling software I have:

If a modeler emulates, say, a Neuman TLM 103, what is it using as its starting point? Is it assuming no color to start with (like those Behringer reference mics), or assuming some standard mic (like an SM-57), or what?

It seems like the coloring would be an additive process, that would apply the color to the color that was there already - so if I were starting with a Baby Bottle (silly example probably - but I just bought it and wanted to slip it into the thread :D ) I would get wildly different results than with an SP-C1 (ditto) or an SM-57.

So I have a pair of Behringer 8000s coming, a pair of 57s, and a pair of SoundRoom MC012s (w/ hypercardioid capsules) - which of these is the best thing to use with a mic modeler for getting an accurately modeled sound? I know I'm at the mercy of the modeler (I have several, it's why I'm not being specific about that), and I know I could probably get special effects by modeling onto a highly-colored mic. But what's my "starting point"?
 
You'll never be able to model a mic no matter what your reference mic is. You'll never get a 57 or an 012 or any mic for that matter to sound like a U67 or an Elam-251. It just ain't gonna happen my friend. I have Anteres Mic modeler and it's OK as far as dicking around with the tone changes it can produce but it won't make a silk purse out of a sows ear.
 
Thanks, but I was hoping this wouldn't turn into a "modelers are for crap" thread.

Anyone who LIKES modelers have an answer?
 
I don't like modelers . . .

. . . but I probably have more of the type of answer you're looking for. :D

Keep in mind that the ecm8000 is an omnidirectional mic, and although the mic modeler can mimic some of the characteristics of a given mic, you can't really make an omni pattern sound like a cardiod pattern if you know what I'm saying here. :D

You'll still get all the self-noise the ecm generates, along with all the room it exaggerates.

I find it rather ironic that you dismissed the notion of the baby bottle's usefulness in this scenario. In all honesty, I couldn't think of a more useful mic to use with a modeler. The idea behind the baby bottle is that it's a no-nonsense, flat, unhyped mic. To use the words of a very well-respected engineer I know, "It doesn't have any EQ built in to it."

Yet you still get all the other characteristics of what amounts to be a world class large-diaphragm condenser . . . when teamed with a good -10 or -20 pad, that is. At least it's as close to world class as you're going to get for $500 (save the ksm32) retail imvho.

In this scenario, if the modeler has anything close to a decent EQ, it could serve as a useful shortcut; Say you're recording a voice that is lacking in the high mids and could use a little zing. You could experiment around with the U87 and other models until you find one to your liking . . . basically using the modeler as a glorified set of EQ "presets" as opposed to taking the extra time to muck around with the eq yourself.

Another example: Say you find yourself recording a drummer who comes strolling in with a double bass or something. If you're in a pinch for an extra kick mic, I could see using the baby bottle modeled to a d112 or similar. Keeping in mind most kick mics will have an eq curve that is friendlier to the kick, so it could be a good start using that type of curve on a flat mic.

If your mic collection is limited, and you're not confident in your own proficiencies using eq, then the mic modeler might make for decent "training wheels," until you either round out your mic collection or get better using your own ears. Just so long as you approach it realistically, understanding what it really is, what it really does, and what it's really useful for.
 
Thx, Chess.

It SOUNDS then, like you're saying the appropriate starting-off point is a flat mic, rather than a "standard" mic like a 57. Which was my question in the first place.

It seems like there would be a market for a modeler that would, say, use a 57 as the starting place for its machinations. Because if I used a 57 with a modeler that used a flat curve (oxymoronically speaking) as its starting place, then my 57 through a TLM103 emulator would give me a combined curve that sounded like neither.

BTW, nice point about the newbie EQing thing - I've never trusted my ear - my tweaks often make things worse instead of better - so some well-considered modeled EQ presets might be just the thing...
 
I don't own a mic modeler, but the ones that I've seen (basically the Antares) in software work a little differently than what you are saying, unless i am misunderstanding your question.

As I understand it, you have to set both the input "source" mic as well as the output "model" mic. So if you are using an SM57, you set it to SM57, and then the various output options will work, or at least work as well as the principle allows. If you have a KM184 as the source, you have to set the modeller appropriately, as it will do different things to get the KM184 to sound like a U47 (for example) than it would to the SM57, and if you leave it as an SM57 you will get different results. Although who can say that you might actually like the results of setting the source to the "wrong" mic.

So I suppose the "best" source mic would be any one that is listed in the modeller's input options. I'm guessing that the most accurate modelling will come when you are changing one mic into something similar, as opposed to something drastically different (like a D112 into a U87). But that's just me speculating.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top