Slate ML-1 VMS Microphone Guts Images

[kingkorg]

There is also one more issue with the Slate plugin. The THD is really through the roof at "normal" recording levels. So if you go with something like -6 to -3db peak with say vocals the THD is way higher than it would ever be with any of the mics. This can be alleviated by recucing the gain before the plugin, but it's hard to know by how much. You could try doing it by ear, but it's tricky for so many reasons.

 

[kingkorg]

Thanks so much for sharing your insight, KingKorg!

Woops sorry!


So it's a close call between the B1, sE2200, and NT1...

Not to hijack your thread, but as a momentary sideline, to the idea of a cheap replica:
It's not so much the THD, Freq curve, proximity effects, off axis response, nor the proximity effect I'm looking for. It's more about transient response, and that crisp detail you get from high end mics (ex: U47FET, Sony C800G)... With mods and Slate's software, which one of those 3 mics do you think can do that best? (don't know why this question makes me laugh a little...)


Why would they add a transformer then? Maybe to adjust the impedance that whatever-the-rest-of-the-circuitry is yielding? If that's the case, maybe the transformer itself is not causing much colouration, but the way the whole thing is designed is...

I'm thinking there may be more to it than distortion & freq response... Do we know for sure that the software only changes those elements? How about transient response; did you measure that with your replicas?



Funny that you say that about the St151, I heard that too; thought I must be imagining it.


for sure, no problem, and thanks for sharing your measurement.


Good to know... 'Might explain why it somehow sounds "better" than other emulations in my blind tests. I usually find everything Slate is overkill to the max; kind of unnatural. But in my blind tests (by ear), I always pick the real mic as #1 fav, then Slate, then Sphere, then clones. I WANT to say clones are as good, and I kind of dislike Slate (don't know why really lol), but the ML-1 seems worth a try. Just out of budget a bit atm...

On the overall subject of emulations, with amps and compressors, I've found some to be potentially as useful as the real thing. No, not the same (and I don't care for that), but just as good, imo.

There is a lot to cover, way beyond my ability to explain here.

I don't mean to be disrespectful, but i have to point to couple things you would need to wrap your head around before we continue the conversation in detail.

Transient response is the term that gets thrown around a lot, but many don't realize what it represents. Transient response is inseparable from frequency response. You can not say you are not interested in FR but you are in TR. It's like saying i'm not interested in current, i'm interested just in voltage.

If your microphone covers the whole 20-20k range (most emulation mics do) it is pointless to discuss transient response. Unless you believe you can hear above 20k.

That crispness in the mics you are talking about comes from ca. 8-12k range. Most condensers have more than good enough TR to cover that. The difference you hear has like it or not to do with frequency response, thd (how clean that crispness is) and capsule construction (phase), which sadly can't be emulated.

You often add transformer because of better cmmr (noise rejection). Or since it's just really a inexpensive 797 audio mic, it could be they picked a model of the existing bunch which performed best for this purpose.

There is more than frequency response and thd. Phase, capsule construction and how it renders 3d sound into one dimensional sound file, noise, capsule THD...

But since this is very technical forum, you wont be hearing (at least not from me) about abstract terms like warmth, depth, fast, slow, bla, bla, bla. All of which can be described in technical terms if one knows what they are talking about. Except for maybe capsule spatial rendition of 3d space into sound file.

The other route is the right brain intuitive, artistic route. That would mean years of chasing the right mic, perfect clone... Which will end up with you either buying the real deal and realizing it wasn't the real bottleneck, or never geting one and using that as an excuse.

My advice would be to try and find the balance between the two, and do your best to learn as much as possible about true, scientific technical aspects of gear. It is called audio engineering for a reason.

Remember, none of these legendary mics were designed by audiophiles, but by real engineers using technical knowledge. Even though in some marketing plots you could dig up some woodoo terminology.

 

[kingkorg]

By transient response, I meant how dynamic the mic is. For example, playing 2 IRs very closely together, I should feel the same attack for both sounds; on some mics, it takes longer for it to become equally responsive again. I guess you mean that would depend on which frequencies the IRs are. I mean overall; in general; 20-20k.

This is very tricky territory. Im not convinced you can feel this, simply because the of the time realm in which we are in. We are talking about microseconds. What you are hearing is like it or not is frequency response difference. This can be easily tested and demonstrated. The two mics might have 20-20K response, but one could be down 10db compared to the other at certain high frequency but have better transient response overall because it's upper frequency limit might be 30K and the other 20K. The one with the 10db dip would feel more sluggish but still have better transient response.

The confusion comes from published graphs that compare condensers fast response to the slow response of a ribbon or dynamic. It is again directly related to FR because typical ribbon will have much lower upper frequency limit compared to the condenser.

I'm an artist, and hang with other artists, so we use broad, unscientific terms. I know other mics (ex Sphere) are technically closer emulations (I understand why), but the ear is the best measuring tool, and at the end of the day, it needs to be musical; to be useful. Hence my appreciation for emulation software.

The only thing i disagree with is that ear is not a measurement tool at all, and is very lousy at this job simply because psychological and psychoacoustic effects which are very well documented. There is also substantial lack of resolution in high frequencies, again scientifically confirmed.

But of course if something sounds good it's all that matters. Proper measurement tools come in handy when you try to pinpoint why something sounds bad, and you want to fix it. A sharp 20db notch at 8k caused by badly spaced backplates is impossible to troubleshoot and fix using only ears. You can hear it's effects, but it's impossible to pinpoint.

I wouldn't be able to clone this ML1, or any other mic using ears only. But if my measurements tell me im spot on, and i hear no difference, than it has to be right.

Make sure you aren't mixing up impulse response with transient response.