Microphone Emulations Software

  • Thread starter Thread starter gvdv
  • Start date Start date
G

gvdv

Member
Hi,
I was reading about microphone emulation software in one of the audio magazines, and wondered what people think of this kind of thing.

Are any of the programs that emulate mics. any good? I know this is a highly subjective question, so maybe a better one would be: are there distinctive differences between the soudns of the various mic. models being emulated, and do any of the emulations produce results which could be/have been used in professional recordings?

Thanks,
GV
 
A friend of mine had the Antares mic modeler. I played around with for a while. Did do much for me. I'd say save your money and buy a good mic. BTW this thread really belongs in the software section.
 
Mic modelling, Like IR modelling is really cool ... but remember that you can't take a terrible sounding track and change it into a better sounding track with a mic model (or anything else for that matter)

But you can take a great sounding track recorded with a great mic, and model a mic over it to change it's characteristics.
 
Isn't most mic modeling software just a fixed EQ curve of the mic's frequency response?

I've never tried one.
 
danny.guitar said:
Isn't most mic modeling software just a fixed EQ curve of the mic's frequency response?

I've never tried one.
Click to expand...
There is a little more to it than that, but that is about it.

It's nifty to play with, but you will never turn a 57 into a u87.
 
Farview said:
It's nifty to play with, but you will never turn a 57 into a u87.
Click to expand...

Yup.

But what if you're recording with a really flat mic, say a measurement mic?

Do you think that would make even a little difference in how well it emulates the sound of another microphone?
 
With the Antares one, you have to specify the mic you used to record the track (the 57) and the mic you wish you recorded it with (the u87). It subtracts the 'color' of the 57, then adds the 'color' of the u87.

If you used a measurment mic, it wouldn't have that pattern to choose from.
 
I messed with Antares for a bit, it seemed to me that it was basically EQ settings. Like Fairview says it tried to take what you worked with and change to your choice of mic. It won't really sound like the other mic, but it's fun to mess with for a bit.
 
I have the Antares mic modeler as a function of my AVP-1, which I bought primarily for autotune. It was marginally interesting to mess with, but I don't use it to emulate mics as it doesn't really compare well with the real thing. Yeah, it is pretty much like tweaking your EQ. There may be better mic modelers out there, but I can't recommend this box for that purpose.
 
Roland has an effects card for VS units that has mic modeling and they used to have preamp that had it,MMP2 I think it was called. Basicallly the models were geared towards you recording with an AKG C3000B and then change a setting an you have a u87. It goes from unimpressive to just plain awful
 
If Anteres Mic Modeller wasn't so expensive I'd say it was worth having around as another sonic sculpting tool. For those with cash to burn, it's worth having, but for the 98% of us who have to carefully consider how to best spend our equipment budget, it's probably never going to rise to the top of the list. A veteran AE with an intimate knowledge of the sonic signatures of all those mikes can do the same thing with a good set of equalizers, but such an AE undoubtably has access to the real mics anyway. So what you're buying is that body of knowledge on how to tweak mic A to have a response curve more like mic B. What it can't do is make mic A's transient response like mic B's, or it's polar pattern, etc.
I think Anteres did a pretty fine job in their undertaking of this concept, but I think the cost to develop it has made the price too high for most to justify buying it.
 
I'll agree with most on the Antares product. It is fun, in that you can specify distance from source, polar pattern, etc.. But, after playing with it for a while, I feel that it's basically a distraction which can pull your attention away from the basic, important things of recording. I doubt that it's a significant tool for professionals.
 
Farview said:
With the Antares one, you have to specify the mic you used to record the track (the 57) and the mic you wish you recorded it with (the u87). It subtracts the 'color' of the 57, then adds the 'color' of the u87.

If you used a measurment mic, it wouldn't have that pattern to choose from.
Click to expand...
How did I get negative rep for this?
 
I have used the Antares AM1 a few times before I added a Rode K2 and a Soundelux e49 to the locker. It basically changes the eq to emulate different famous mics. You will need a decent quality mic to get acceptable results (you have to enter the type of mic you are using and the included list are mics in the $100-600 range) . You won't be able to take a radio shack cheapo and emulate a u47. Don't know how accurate it is since there are numerous other variables to consider. .. preamp, room accoustics, etc. Since I've improved my mic collection, it just gathers dust....hmmmm...wonder if I could make the e49 sound like a MXL 990....seriously...it may be useful as a sound enriching effect at some point.
 
Farview said:
How did I get negative rep for this?
Click to expand...

How dare you speak the truth! :mad:

:rolleyes:

That's about as neutral a statement as could have possibly been made on this topic.

I'll add my voice to the consensus: a fun toy and useful if you have the cash to spare, but not really a go-to plug.

The best use I ever had for it was saving some 20 layered backing vocals that were all done with the same setup. It wasn't bad, but it seemed like the build up of that mic's sound was causing trouble- so I went hog wild with the Mic Mod and changed them around. Nothing you couldn't do with and EQ, but work had the plug and I'd been looking for an excuse to use it.

Worked really well. Beyond that, the only other thing I used it for was placebo stuff.

Cleint: "I think this mic is what's making my voice sound bad. Yeah, that's it."

Tired Engineer: "Hmmm... you might be right about that. Mics and voices are all unique and it can be tricky getting a good match. Fortunately, I have PRO TOOLS... lemme see..."

Client: "What's that?"

Saavy Engineer: "Well, I have the sonic signatures of every classic mic stored in Pro Tools and I can make your vocal track sound like it was recorded by just about any mic in existence. Here... let's try the U87. Its a $5000 mic that really goes well with your kind of voice..."

Cleint: "My voice goes well with at $5000 mic? Wow..."

Smug Engineer: "You bet. Listen. (click).... Damn, that sounds just like my old 87! Hear how crisp the articulation is? The rich depth? Here... let's move it off axis....THERE!"

Client: "Yeah, that sounds a lot better. Cool, I guess that's a take then. How did they ever make music without Pro Tools?"

Elated Engineer: "Good! I was worried that another take would tire out your voice. Now why don't you go home and rest those precious vocal chords and I'll edit together a good comp from the 20 or so takes we've got...."

Take care,
Chris
 
As far as I know all mic sims do is change the eq to a set curve.

The only useful thing mic sims can do is change the sound, not improve it, and if it can, it's nothing you couldn't easily do yourself with a bit of eq.
 
Robert D said:
If Anteres Mic Modeller wasn't so expensive I'd say it was worth having around as another sonic sculpting tool. For those with cash to burn, it's worth having, but for the 98% of us who have to carefully consider how to best spend our equipment budget, it's probably never going to rise to the top of the list. A veteran AE with an intimate knowledge of the sonic signatures of all those mikes can do the same thing with a good set of equalizers, but such an AE undoubtably has access to the real mics anyway. So what you're buying is that body of knowledge on how to tweak mic A to have a response curve more like mic B. What it can't do is make mic A's transient response like mic B's, or it's polar pattern, etc.
I think Anteres did a pretty fine job in their undertaking of this concept, but I think the cost to develop it has made the price too high for most to justify buying it.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I'd pay $20 for it if it didn't require a *&^%*^% dongle. I wouldn't pay the $250 retail price in a million years.... It probably would have done very well had they not overpriced it so ridiculously, but when they first released it and I saw the price tag, my immediate reaction was "yeah, right". I laughed 'til I cried.

Oh, and they've announced that they aren't planning to make a native version for the Intel Macs. I'd say that means the product is basically dead. My guess is that everybody else had the same reaction I did....
 
FYI, from the manual......

About The Technology
The models employed by the Microphone Modeler are not derived
from theoretical considerations. They are generated by a proprietary
analysis process that is applied to each physical mic modeled. Not
only the sonic characteristics, but the behavior of other parameters
such as low-cut filters or proximity effects accurately reflect the
specific performance of each individual microphone we model.
The precision of these models allows the Microphone Modeler to
reproduce even the subtle (and sometimes not-so-subtle) sonic
variations that one often finds in different samples of the same
model of microphone. Consequently, for some important mics,
we’ve provided multiple models, each based on measurements
taken from individual mics.
Another advantage of our model-based approach is that there is
essentially no processing delay apart from the natural phase effects
of the microphones being modeled and any delay inherent in the
operation of the host application or hardware environment.
Finally, the quality and signal-to-noise characteristics of the processing
are pristine. Because of our commitment to model-based processing,
there are none of the limitations or distortions characteristic
of FFT-based algorithms. The quality of the output is limited only by
the quality of the input.
 
Farview said:
How did I get negative rep for this?
Click to expand...

I was gonna give you one to make up for it, but I see you're in no danger of a low rep score. :D Beats me what someone was thinking though....weird.
 
Hi Everyone,
Thanks for your replies.

And sorry for posting this in the wrong forum;I weighed the choices, and (obviously) made the wrong decision.

This seems to have turned into a discussion about Antares specifically; does anyone have any experience with any other mic. emulator/simulator?

Thanks,

GV
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top