Universal Audio SC-1 Hemisphere Mic Modeling Is a Behringer

[wanderingengineer]

This is fascinating stuff. I don’t have the hemisphere plugin, only Sphere but I am a UAD user. I guess I will have to find a way to get it, possibly by buying the cheapest “Standard Series” mic.

UAD are on record as saying the SC-1 uses the same capsule as Sphere here. Maybe they mean a similar 797 one, or they only use one side of the CY002?

 

[kingkorg]

This is fascinating stuff. I don’t have the hemisphere plugin, only Sphere but I am a UAD user. I guess I will have to find a way to get it, possibly by buying the cheapest “Standard Series” mic.

UAD are on record as saying the SC-1 uses the same capsule as Sphere here. Maybe they mean a similar 797 one, or they only use one side of the CY002?

I love how these companies give me the opportunity to debunk their lies. Or maybe half-truths, as this is just the half of Sphere's capsule, with the other half being transparent plastic backplate. And no, it doesn't sound the same.

 

[sumitagarwal]

To be fair, here they state that it's basically half the capsule:
https://uadforum.com/community/index.php?threads/sc1-vs-sphere.68119/post-495793

I think you'd be more than pleased with the SC1.

It's basically "half" a Sphere. Same capsule and VERY similar circuits.

 

[kingkorg]

To be fair, here they state that it's basically half the capsule:
https://uadforum.com/community/index.php?threads/sc1-vs-sphere.68119/post-495793

No, they don't. It is not the same capsule. Not that it really matters, but there are significant differences. It is not even half the electronics, as the filtering doesn't happen in the mic but in software. I don't know if they hire people that don't know their own products, or if they are deceiving people for marketing reasons.

 

[sumitagarwal]

No, they don't. It is not the same capsule. Not that it really matters, but there are significant differences. It is not even half the electronics, as the filtering doesn't happen in the mic but in software. I don't know if they hire people that don't know their own products, or if they are deceiving people for marketing reasons.

Maybe this is giving the benefit of doubt, but I'd lean on the direction of lack of expertise rather than marketing. None of the actual marketing materials suggest shared components, and if anything I think they would prefer to position a wider gap between the products given how much the Sphere needs to be seen as a premium offering to justify it's price.

On the one hand, I would be wrong. On the other hand, I am an executive at a marketing company.

 

[Naquat]

OK, tell me if I interpret this correctly.

Purchase a UA SD-3 which comes with Hemisphere which can emulate multiple different mics.

Referencing kingkorg's test the B-1 works great with Hemisphere.

Would the B-1 be a better mic than the SD-3 to use with Hemisphere?

And, is Hemisphere only usable with one Mic, one Track at a time?

Could one use 3 B-1 mics at the same time in a live recording in a DAW?

Thank you!!

 

[wanderingengineer]

So, @Naquat , I cannot speak to Hemisphere specifically but my best guess is is that you select the “source” mic when using it. Kingkorg will hopefully confirm but my guess is you can choose any model from any source mic.

Obviously, results are going to differ, depending on the actual source mic used and conventional microphone wisdom will apply. A dynamic source mic is going to work better/more accurately model similar mics and will probably suit for example, close miking a snare, better than a condenser due to SPL limitations etc. However, in principle, I think you should be fine to experiment.

The “benefit” of using a B-1, apart from not having to pay an arguably extortionate price for a simple basic large diaphragm condenser, is that condensers are very sensitive mics, with a wide FR and transient response (generally). So most models should be effective, albeit in the light of what I have already said.

I don’t think there will be a software limit on the number of instances of the Hemisphere plugin that you can run simultaneously not least because it is common practice to use a mic modelling plugin on audio tracks after the fact (post capture) in order to benefit from the tonality flavours that modelling can offer during mixdown.

So, TLDR: I think it’ll be fine and you should be ok with what you want to achieve but let’s get the hemisphere confirmation from Kingkorg.

 

[sumitagarwal]

So, @Naquat , I cannot speak to Hemisphere specifically but my best guess is is that you select the “source” mic when using it. Kingkorg will hopefully confirm but my guess is you can choose any model from any source mic.

Obviously, results are going to differ, depending on the actual source mic used and conventional microphone wisdom will apply. A dynamic source mic is going to work better/more accurately model similar mics and will probably suit for example, close miking a snare, better than a condenser due to SPL limitations etc. However, in principle, I think you should be fine to experiment.

The “benefit” of using a B-1, apart from not having to pay an arguably extortionate price for a simple basic large diaphragm condenser, is that condensers are very sensitive mics, with a wide FR and transient response (generally). So most models should be effective, albeit in the light of what I have already said.

I don’t think there will be a software limit on the number of instances of the Hemisphere plugin that you can run simultaneously not least because it is common practice to use a mic modelling plugin on audio tracks after the fact (post capture) in order to benefit from the tonality flavours that modelling can offer during mixdown.

So, TLDR: I think it’ll be fine and you should be ok with what you want to achieve but let’s get the hemisphere confirmation from Kingkorg.

In terms of polar and proximity response especially I'd presume that the mics will generally best approximate those of most similar design.

The SD-3 and the B-5 are, relatively speaking, far apart in design. A dynamic versus a large diaphragm condenser. So buying both would give you a huge range of versatility for a total investment of around $150.

 

[kingkorg]

You can use as many instances as you like, as far as i can tell. I havent tested, or even explored other "input" mics.

All of this falls into a somewhat grey territory when it comes to exploiting these "free", yet licensed plugins.

There are many ways to skin the cat.

I like what i see, and hear with these. They are more than decent creative tools.

Being able to measure many different mics and capsules that come into my hands i have a substantial bank of frequency responses i have gathered over the years. So i can turn many decent, inexpensive mics into whatever i like in this fashion.

I'm giving away a small "trade secret" here. I have my own modeling mics, and i use k47 capsule for k47 based emulations, CK12 for CK12 emulations, k67 for k67 and so on... This is one of the reasons i was so excited about @soliloqueen flat k47.

What makes me happy is that i can confirm Townsend Labs has done remarkable job with the emulations, and UA seems to be continuing to do great job. Something i unfortunately can't say for other modeling mics.

IMHO next step would be for a company to do what i've done. Create modeling platforms with appropriate capsules for each family of mics. I doubt it will ever happen, as the system would be too expensive.

I use different emulation curves all the time on my overheads, applied to Line Audio CM4.

Nothing stops you from "extracting" the curves from any of the mentioned plug-ins. I don't even think there's anything illegal about it.

Nothing stops you from turning something like B-1 into a tube mic, as the Hemisphere and Sphere are not doing much to emulate the tube circuit behaviour.

Use creativity to extract curves from existing published graphs from companies that have accurate measurements. Neumann's graphs seem to be accurate, as far as i can tell from the mics i have measured. Sony's published c800g graph is also accurate. I can't go into the details on how to do it. Use imagination and creativity.

 

[kingkorg]

REW can export signal sweep wav file. You run it through a plug-in, import back into REW and you get the curve of what the plugin is doing. Again, there are other ways to do it.

 

[sumitagarwal]

REW can export signal sweep wav file. You run it through a plug-in, import back into REW and you get the curve of what the plugin is doing. Again, there are other ways to do it.

In theory could take this library of sweeps and use this library itself to convert models to each other?

Could arbitrarily choose any as a source and another as a target, with lower correction and better results the more similar the source and target units are.

 

[kingkorg]

In theory could take this library of sweeps and use this library itself to convert models to each other?

Could arbitrarily choose any as a source and another as a target, with lower correction and better results the more similar the source and target units are.

Absolutely. There is a number of mics that have acoustic anomalies like deep nulls, or ringing of the body which makes them a lousy both targets, and platforms to apply models to. Non of these included in the plugin tho.

Ear Trumpet mics come to mind. Way too funky stuff. Dynamic mics are also difficult to emulate for this reason.

 

[sumitagarwal]

Simulating tube mics seem like it would be an ideal application of UA's Unison tech, but as far as I can tell they're not doing that.

With an Apollo interface and an SC-1 or Sphere it should be possible for them to fully model a U47 along with the tube dynamics running into, say, a Neve 1073. All with realistic gain staging.

I know A/D gain and then virtual preamp gain can separately be tweaked to taste and idealized result. But honestly I think the linked interface and model gain of the Unison approach seems like an attractive creative constraint and one less bit of minutia to tweak every time.