Slate ML-1 VMS Microphone Guts Images

GroupDIY Audio Forum

Help Support GroupDIY Audio Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

kingkorg

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 15, 2017
Messages
2,972
Location
Norway
I got my hands on ML1, and wanted to report what's inside. The capsule is from 797 audio - CY032 model. Fortunately i have 4 pieces i ordered few years back, so i'll be making some replicas soon.

The circuit has some filtering going on, which can be seen in the measurement.

The fet used is BF256B, and interestingly it goes straight out to a cap and BV8 type transformer.

The mic is well manufactured, is low noise and low THD.

Emulations measure very well, they nail all the typical curves of the mics they try to emulate. Off course they can't match the subtle differences like proximity effect, off axis response etc. but i find it to be very well manufactured mic that performs great on it's own, and emulations can be useful. If it sounds good, it's good. It probably won't replace your favorite vintage tube mic, but i wouldn't call it a gimmick, it's a perfectly usable tool. At first i thought i could do a mod, but i can't really find anything to improve on.













Frequency response of the circuit measured by injecting the signal through a 68pF cap.
 
Last edited:
Bacause of your question I guess none, but without it i would think that the sound path could have one capacitor less. But besides it, how can a microphone lack the output capacitor?
Sorry, i updated the original post. There is an output cap, i havent traced the circuit but i think it's the C14. What i meant by FET to transformer was there isn't a PNP inbetween like in many cheap mics. Instead ML1 uses a proper high ratio transformer.
 
Bacause of your question I guess none, but without it i would think that the sound path could have one capacitor less.
Whatever side the cap is, it's in series with the xfmr. It doesn't really change anything, except at an infinitesimal level.

But besides it, how can a microphone lack the output capacitor?
It is doable. It would take another FET and a few other things. It may have some advantages, but it would also have some disadvantages., particularly that of being less simple, which some consider a virtue.
 
I'll admit, i've had zero interest to look into the ML-1 before, but it's not even multipattern? Sheesh...
The ML1 should not be evaluated in direct comparison with standard mics, it should be considered as part of an ecosystem, in which the software and post-processing are an important and unseparable element.
This becomes particularly evident when put in comparison with the Sphere L22 system.
I must admit that the ML1 appears as an half-assed approach compared to the L22.
 
I've used ML-1 about year.
For vocalists it is just balanced mic without character. Software changing EQ and adding harmonics (different for different mics).
In comparison Townsend sphere have very basic emulation.
After adding even 150% of emulation I still lacks character.
Sold it without hesitation.
 
I was impressed with the frequency curve of the Slate ML1 microphone. Doesn't the ML1 capsule have a 20hz-20khz range? Looks like the Behringer B1 is better than the Slate ML1. I like the sound of it. It's not bad.
 
I was impressed with the frequency curve of the Slate ML1 microphone. Doesn't the ML1 capsule have a 20hz-20khz range? Looks like the Behringer B1 is better than the Slate ML1. I like the sound of it. It's not bad.
+1 on what Abbey said. Yes 20-20.000 but plus/minus how many db? One could say sm57 has 20-20.000 range...

On the other hand, software compesates for mic's FR, and in a sense it doesn't matter.
That capsule most definitely has 20-20000, but it's the circuit that lowers LF and HF response.

Behringer B1 and ML1 are produced by the same exact company. 797 audio.
 
Hi, so did you ever make a replica after all? I'm aiming to try a cheap version myself, and wondering what's the best route for the most similar sound to the ML-1.

You've mentioned using the Behringer B1, and other people have suggested the Rode NT1-A, but afaik, those are tranformerless. I would assume that having a similar transformer to the ML-1 would make the end result more similar to the ML-1... In another thread, about the ML-2, you stated that a flatter mic would give better results with Slate's software, but wouldn't that cause the sound to be overly coloured when the emulation is engaged? If the software is set to make up for its less-than-perfect mic, then (by my logic), it would over-compensate for a FLAT mic... My point being that I would want the same imperfections/weaknesses in my replica as in the original.

When it comes to moding, etc, I consider myself a beginner with some experience. What do you think is the easiest path to getting the closest replica? How about the Sterling Audio ST151, then change the capsule to 797 audio - CY032?
It's hard to know what i meant exactly if you don't quote the post. Could be a post before this thread, and before i got the chance to analyze the mic.

Anyways, transformers have some coloration, as the mic is supposed to be colorless you can go with transformer-less circuit. The transformer imprint in this particular mic is very low, thd at reasonable levels is way below 1%, so it's questionable if anyone could hear that. But yes, if you insist you could use a transformer coupled mic, but you have to make sure it doesn't color the sound. All of the emulations of the Slate plugin have considerably higher THD imprint whichever path you choose, so .5%, or 1% at higher SPL don't really change much.

St151 has an ugly, massive headgrille that changes the sound of the capsule too much, st51 would be a better choice. I got best results with u87 type headgrille, so b1 and such would be a good choice. Something like se Electronics 2200 seems to be the best candidate. The one with just cardioid pattern.

You are right, you don't want flat mic, but i don't remember stating anywhere that you might want that. If i said flatter, the question is flatter compared to what?

You also need to make sure the circuit of the mic has the sad face curve i posted before. Or use flat circuit + appropriate eq curve before the plugin.

Yes i have made several replicas with great success, but i have measurement to confirm the results. If i had to go blindly, i would choose the SE2200 mic, change the capsule, and use the EQ curve i posted before, before the plugin. It doesn't make any difference if you do it in mic, or in plugin. It's just correction curve.
 
Last edited:
And here's the impulse response to match NT1 and Slate ML1 responses. So Rode NT1 + this IR = Slate ML-1. In my environment with the mics i have the two sound indistinguishable. YMMV as the mics you have might not be exactly the same as mine, but with the consistency i've measured with these models i don't think there should be any problems.
This is the post with included IR where you can use the black NT1 to get the same result. As the capsule is of similar construction, but slightly different response it will get you where you want to be. If you have access to that mic, you can easily test it.
 
I've used ML-1 about year.
For vocalists it is just balanced mic without character. Software changing EQ and adding harmonics (different for different mics).
In comparison Townsend sphere have very basic emulation.
After adding even 150% of emulation I still lacks character.
Sold it without hesitation.
I don't think the Slate system can touch the Sphere. There's a lot more than frequency response going on in a mic, I've always found the Slate systems to literally just sound like they've been EQ'd, arguably worse than manually applying an EQ. Dual output mics like the Sphere (and Austrian Audio OC818) can have their patterns adjusted in post and to an extent you can probably emulate some of the polar pattern behaviour of classic mics, but you're not gonna get a convincing emulation of something like a C12 from a single sided K67 capsule.

Hell, I think I've gotten better results EQing myself than the results I've heard from Slate's VMS.
 
Back
Top