NOS Audio's "MiLo" plugin, and using your DIY C12/251 clone as a mic emulator

[wstratton]

I'm intrigued by NOS Audio's "MiLo" plugin, which is intended for use with their NOS12 Microphone:

https://www.jrrshop.com/nos-audio-milo
While I don't intend on buying the microphone, I will be building a similar 251-ish mod of an Apex 460b soon, and I'm looking forward to seeing how the MiLo plugin shapes the sound. Curious if anyone else has any experience with using this emulation plugin on other microphones.

 

[kingkorg]

While the technology and idea behind the emulations is somewhat proven and satisfactory, i can't imagine how three totally different capsules that go optionally with the mic (rk12, CT12, M7) could possibly have close enough responses for the emulations to be accurate. The published FR graph looks nothing like 251 or c12.

Idk if you've seen my TL Sphere dissection post, but that plugin is free to download, and you can build a tube or solid state mic using the same exact key components TL uses, with amazing results. Plus multi pattern/off axis control.

 

[Wordsushi]

I'm intrigued by NOS Audio's "MiLo" plugin, which is intended for use with their NOS12 Microphone:

https://www.jrrshop.com/nos-audio-milo
While I don't intend on buying the microphone, I will be building a similar 251-ish mod of an Apex 460b soon, and I'm looking forward to seeing how the MiLo plugin shapes the sound. Curious if anyone else has any experience with using this emulation plugin on other microphones.

NOS Audio sent over a couple of mics to check out. One with the Cinemag and one stock. I haven't tried the plug-in with other mics yet but it would definitely be worth a shot. Essentially, the NOS12 is a pre-modded Apex 460 that NOS sells for $240 and you can get it with a Cinemag CM-13114 installed for an extra $50, which I believe is dealer cost. I was told that NOS Audio is currently working on 20 additional tube mic models that will be available as software upgrades later this year.

 

[wstratton]

While the technology and idea behind the emulations is somewhat proven and satisfactory, i can't imagine how three totally different capsules that go optionally with the mic (rk12, CT12, M7) could possibly have close enough responses for the emulations to be accurate. The published FR graph looks nothing like 251 or c12.

Idk if you've seen my TL Sphere dissection post, but that plugin is free to download, and you can build a tube or solid state mic using the same exact key components TL uses, with amazing results. Plus multi pattern/off axis control.

I agree with you that the M7 is probably a bad fit for the emulations, but the RK12 and CT12 probably have a similar frequency response, no? I’m assuming that’s what their plugin is tailored for, and the M7 is more of an outlier, though I could be wrong. I am also intrigued by the DIY Townsend stuff you’ve done—maybe I’ll do both!

Wordsushi, I saw your comparison between the Soyuz 017 FET and NOS’s 017 tube emulation, and that was the impetus for my interest in the plugin—nice job!

 

[Icantthinkofaname]

I agree with you that the M7 is probably a bad fit for the emulations, but the RK12 and CT12 probably have a similar frequency response, no? I’m assuming that’s what their plugin is tailored for, and the M7 is more of an outlier, though I could be wrong. I am also intrigued by the DIY Townsend stuff you’ve done—maybe I’ll do both!

Wordsushi, I saw your comparison between the Soyuz 017 FET and NOS’s 017 tube emulation, and that was the impetus for my interest in the plugin—nice job!

I don't how similar they'd actually be. The RK-12 is basically a K67 with a 5 or 6 dB boost instead of 6 or 7.

 

[Khron]

View attachment 91897
I don't how similar they'd actually be. The RK-12 is basically a K67 with a 5 or 6 dB boost instead of 6 or 7.

So that's the response of what capsules, and which is which?

 

[Icantthinkofaname]

So that's the response of what capsules, and which is which?

Red is CT12, green is RK12. Both are cardioid measurements from Fox Audio Research's C12 clones.

 

[Khron]

~2dB @ 3.5k and 2-3dB above 13k(?) isn't exactly worlds apart, but... what do i know?

 

[Icantthinkofaname]

~2dB @ 3.5k and 2-3dB above 13k(?) isn't exactly worlds apart, but... what do i know?

I think straight on axis in cardioid they'd probably be the similar.

 

[Gus]

I don't understand how you can MODEL a microphone without both diaphragms outputs from a the microphone being outputed and/or an only one diaphragm(cardiod) microphone.
You can EQ and add distortion and compression but I don't understand how you could model another capsule design.

 

[soliloqueen]

The advantage that a true CK-12 has over an edge terminated k67 is pattern quality really, and maybe transient response. It's not really something that can be modeled with EQ. The modeled frequency responses will probably still work fine with the CT12 since they're so similar on axis at measuring distance but the proximity and off axis responses will be completely different. But that doesn't really matter because the plug-in doesn't model that to begin with. So it'll still be just as right and wrong as it was with the other capsule. I don't think there'd be much issue ordering the ct-12 version if you know what you're doing. Probably be a nice mic.

The M7 though, I'm certain that would completely break the plugin unless they have separate EQ curves for it

 

[Icantthinkofaname]

I don't understand how you can MODEL a microphone without both diaphragms outputs from a the microphone being outputed and/or an only one diaphragm(cardiod) microphone.
You can EQ and add distortion and compression but I don't understand how you could model another capsule design.

The advantage that a true CK-12 has over an edge terminated k67 is pattern quality really, and maybe transient response. It's not really something that can be modeled with EQ. The modeled frequency responses will probably still work fine with the CT12 since they're so similar on axis at measuring distance but the proximity and off axis responses will be completely different. But that doesn't really matter because the plug-in doesn't model that to begin with. So it'll still be just as right and wrong as it was with the other capsule. I don't think there'd be much issue ordering the ct-12 version if you know what you're doing. Probably be a nice mic.

The M7 though, I'm certain that would completely break the plugin unless they have separate EQ curves for it

I think it might be a worthwhile purchase as a cheap edge terminated tube mic (and I'm considering it for this purpose). I can't imagine the modeling will be super accurate though. One of the things I hate about the Slate VMS is that it always sounded like obvious EQ to me. Why wouldn't I just get a really flat microphone and EQ it myself at that point?

 

[Wordsushi]

I agree with you that the M7 is probably a bad fit for the emulations, but the RK12 and CT12 probably have a similar frequency response, no? I’m assuming that’s what their plugin is tailored for, and the M7 is more of an outlier, though I could be wrong. I am also intrigued by the DIY Townsend stuff you’ve done—maybe I’ll do both!

Wordsushi, I saw your comparison between the Soyuz 017 FET and NOS’s 017 tube emulation, and that was the impetus for my interest in the plugin—nice job!

Thank you very much! I doubt anyone is going to replace their u47 or Soyuz 017 Tube with it, but for the money it gives you a lot of sonic options to play with.

 

[RuudNL]

I always have some doubts about 'modeling'.
Many years ago I had a 'microphone modeler', where you could select the source microphone and the microphone you wanted to emulate. So you could for example select a SM57 as source and a U67 as target.
Yeah, sure...