The Virtual Microphone

I liked this the first time when it was Called Mic modeler and all that really did was toss an eq curve across your pro tools track.

Watch out now slate is in the mix with something that does the same thing. Personally I think it's all shyte.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_rzzoFCm8qk

Come on ... it's so much more than just an eq curve ...

It has distortion too .... 

....

Who knows, maybe we'll eat our own socks upon hearing this one day.  I would love for that to happen ....

I'm sure (hope) he is doing something more than combining the mic modeler and liquid channel.

If everything a mic does could be summed up in a simple impulse response plus distortion, life would be much simpler for guys like Tim Campbell 

Jakob E.

gyraf said:

If everything a mic does could be summed up in a simple impulse response plus distortion, life would be much simpler for guys like Tim Campbell 

Jakob E.

Click to expand...

I like this where did the like button go?

But this one has the magic box.............. :

I think this makes my vintage mic's go up in value overnight. Thanks Mr. Slate!

Their target customer is the young laptop freak sitting in a bedroom studio. These guys had never come in close contact to a high quality audio signal chain.

Surrogates...

I'm as skeptical as all of you!  I had the original mic modeler and used it...maybe once.  I use many plugins now along side my analog outboard gear.  I simply love the analog stuff.  But, I sit on the fence on the idea of modeling and how good it can get.  We are looking at a complex waveform.  If someone can find a method to disassemble a complex waveform, understand all the components and then rebuild it, then there seems to be no reason it can't be done.  Engineers have conquered so many incredibly difficult challenges, how long will it take for someone to crack this one, and get it right?

regards,
Jeff

It will never be 100% right because so much to the sonics in relation to microphones is due to acoustical properties which I don't think they have yet to get all that correct. Take altiverb the plug in, sure it sounds good until you compare it to the real thing in an A/B test. Yeah my lexicon 960L reverb in altiverb is pretty good but the real 960 L just just better sounding. So for me it"s beyond skeptical.  I don't think Slate or anyone at his compound has an Idea of how a mic works.

Well, Paul Wolff is there now. It has only been a short time though. I'm sure this virtual mic thing was pretty much done when he joined the party.

I looked at this back in the '80s. I even recall a friend with a recording studio who taught classes, where he would line up several mics in a row and EQ them to sound "similar".  "Similar" is the operative word. You can EQ the response to match for say on axis pick up, but mics have 3D patterns with different frequency response for sundry vectors so you can only match at one axis.

So long story short you can gat a similar sound for limited conditions, but there is no way ever to change a mic's pick up  pattern after the fact "in the mix".

JR

Note: there are other subtle differences too, but IMO 90%+ is the polar frequency response(s).

Talked to the slate guys about the virtual mic. First time I went by their a/b mic, a u-87 wasn't working. Then today they had a real u-47. Asked about the mic modeling process and how they went about modeling each mic for on axis and off axis responses. To which the look of confusion on their faces was priceless. Best was when they told me they modeled frequency response and distortion. But no mention of relation to polar pattern or any other characteristics of any microphone.

So this should be awesome then.

How about transients? Can the (fast) transients of a ribbon element be "captured" by Slate's mic or modelled?

JohnRoberts said:

I looked at this back in the '80s. I even recall a friend with a recording studio who taught classes, where he would line up several mics in a row and EQ them to sound "similar".  "Similar" is the operative word. You can EQ the response to match for say on axis pick up, but mics have 3D patterns with different frequency response for sundry vectors so you can only match at one axis.

So long story short you can gat a similar sound for limited conditions, but there is no way ever to change a mic's pick up  pattern after the fact "in the mix".

Note: there are other subtle differences too, but IMO 90%+ is the polar frequency response(s).

Click to expand...

You can do it with something like this
http://www.core-sound.com/TetraMic/1.php
and
http://vvaudio.com/products/vvmic

If someone is happy to lend me a C12 or U47 which has been certified as having the true vintage magic sound, I can match its polar patterns & amplitude responses to first order (and also 2nd order but only in one preferred direction) with modifications to VVMic.

But IMnotsoHO, the native sound of TetraMic in all its modes is superior to either and probably the best microphone of the 21st century.

The best microphone of the 20th century, the Calrec Mk4 Soundfield, was also my baby 

pucho812 said:

Talked to the slate guys about the virtual mic. First time I went by their a/b mic, a u-87 wasn't working. Then today they had a real u-47. Asked about the mic modeling process and how they went about modeling each mic for on axis and off axis responses. To which the look of confusion on their faces was priceless. Best was when they told me they modeled frequency response and distortion. But no mention of relation to polar pattern or any other characteristics of any microphone.

Click to expand...

Hi thanks for coming by the booth. What's odd is that we never had a U87 at the booth, nor was the U47 that we had ever 'not working'.  Maybe you are confusing us with another booth.

Regarding asking one of my staff members about off axis, I hope you realize that not every staff member is an engineer and had you asked ME or Fabrice, I would have been happy to give you an answer.

The ML-1 has a cardioid polar pattern that is matched very closely with the M7 style capsule.. which if you've tested you'll know is also very similar to the CK12 capsule in terms of ratio to off axis response (not tone).  Therefore, we model only microphones with a cardioid pattern.  We are working on a multi pattern mic as well.

During the physical modeling of the microphones, many tests are done, including off axis tests. Some of you may find it ironic that off axis and distance modeling was easier to match than the close up on axis modeling.. which took the longest to master.

I'd be happy to answer any questions.

Cheers,
Steven

Holger said:

Their target customer is the young laptop freak sitting in a bedroom studio. These guys had never come in close contact to a high quality audio signal chain.

Surrogates...

Click to expand...

The customer is anyone who wants a creative tool to help them make music.  We had many requests from multi platinum selling pros for the first units out of the factory.  Another pro wanted us to clone his 251 so he could have a stereo pair. We accepted.

Cheers,
Steven

pucho812 said:

It will never be 100% right because so much to the sonics in relation to microphones is due to acoustical properties which I don't think they have yet to get all that correct. Take altiverb the plug in, sure it sounds good until you compare it to the real thing in an A/B test. Yeah my lexicon 960L reverb in altiverb is pretty good but the real 960 L just just better sounding. So for me it"s beyond skeptical.  I don't think Slate or anyone at his compound has an Idea of how a mic works.

Click to expand...

After two years of study I'm pretty confident that I know a few things. For instance, you discuss "acoustical properties".  But what you fail to realize is that those acoustical properties CREATE A SONIC RESULT.

We can measure the sonic result that the microphone produces.  This has taken a long time to master, and is not easy.  But quite a few of us at the compound have figured out some tricks, which is why we put up a U47  at our NAMM booth and did several dozen shootouts against the VMS which for those who have not watched the video, is a complete system that includes a specialized mic and preamp.

I'd love to post some of the latest demos using the current algos.  Perhaps if you actually hear it, you can make a better decision on whether you like the technology.

Cheers,
Steven

pucho812 said:

I liked this the first time when it was Called Mic modeler and all that really did was toss an eq curve across your pro tools track.

Watch out now slate is in the mix with something that does the same thing. Personally I think it's all shyte.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_rzzoFCm8qk

Click to expand...

Hi, do you think that there have been any advancements in DSP and CPU processing in the ten years that the Antares plugin was released?

Did the Antares use a reference microphone and preamp hardware?  Can an eq curve saturate or manipulate the phase like the VMS can?

Cheers,
Steven

that was a lot to read over.  Not the best  thing after four days of non stop action. Anyway I might as well start with the obvious comment of the m7 and c12 capsules being similar. About the only thing similar about those two capsules is that they are  large diaphragm mic capsules.

The most obvious difference between the CK12 capsule and Neumann’s M7 used in the early U47s is that the former used an edge-terminated dual backplate design, as opposed to Neumann’s centre-terminated capsule. However, hidden inside the backplate, the AKG design operates in a fundamentally different way from the Neumann one, although the differences are technical and subtle: the former is based on a resonator design and the latter on the ‘aperiodic’ concept. The dimensions of the diaphragm to backplate spacing and the chamber labyrinths within the backplates also evolved over the life of the CK12 design, in an effort to increase its sensitivity. Amusingly, the side-effect of this tinkering was to boost the extreme high-end response, which subsequently became an integral characteristic of the C12’s infamous sound. Also, early C12s employed 10-micron-thick Styroflex diaphragms, but later versions (and all the Telefunken and Siemens models) used lighter and more responsive 9- and latterly 6-micron Mylar diaphragms.

I won't even go into the differences in east German vs west German M7's.