Hey there.. been off for a while, got a question

[donreynolds]

Hey guys and gals, Ive been off here for a while, had some life issues and educational goals to work on in which I am almost there. Have not been doing a lot of recording. Good to be back. I've missed it a lot. It was a sacrifice stopping one thing I love to do another thing I love also. But maybe now I can do both, Lol!

I was using DP7.24 and loved it. Bought DP8 but never installed it. Pretty much got it to get 9 free.
I have installed DP 9 and it looks pretty cool. I am hoping it it is as smooth as 7.24 was.
Any comments about it for those that have used it much yet? I usually don't install new x.0 versions until I hear from this group how it works, bugs and stuff., but what the Hey!! I did it.

Also, I used Anteres Mic modeler a lot which I thought was ok, But Steven Slate has announced that he is coming out with a mic system and preamp that will absolutely duplicate $20-30K mics? I have most of his software and really like it. So far he has been a great guy to talk with and his stuff seems to hold up for quality in my opinion.

Personally, I have never even been close to mics of that quality, but I know some of you have. I did not see a price on the system yet, but I was wondering what insight there might be on this?
Thanks,
Don

[donreynolds]

ooooookay? I guess no comments. Thanks anyway. I will explore DP 9 and wait on the Slate system to check it out myself. I will let you know my thoughts on it.

[Phil O]

Hi, Don. Don't give up so quickly. Some of us work for a living.

Steven Slate has announced that he is coming out with a mic system and preamp that will absolutely duplicate $20-30K mics?

A statement like that feeds my skepticism. There are some great mics and preamps out there that out-perform higher priced units, but most of the time you get what you pay for. I tried Antares's Mic Modeler way back when and wasn't impressed. I'm assuming Slate is talking about hardware, though. So, what exactly are you looking for? Give us an idea of your budget and needs and I'm sure you'll get plenty of feedback.

Regarding DP9, I'm lovin it. Works great here. I think you made a good choice upgrading.

Phil

[donreynolds]

Ha ha sorry, did not intend any disrespect. I was just eager to hear some of the opinions and comments of guys here that are so knowledgeable. Awesome news about DP9. I like the new features. I am liking it so far. Loaded up great and no problems yet. All my other plugs except T-racks loaded. Waves, SLate, etc...
I do not have a huge budget as I have a home studio. I have been using the a Rhode NT2 and an audio Technica 20/35. They were inexpensive and working alright for my needs.
I did not think a whole lot of the mic modeler but I used it mostly just to change what my mics did in general. Of course when I heard that Slate had been working two years on the algorithms, and was showing waveforms, artifacts, harmonics of these mics and duplicating them side by side visually and sonically (audio comparisons), I was interested. I have liked his other software.
I was hoping for the best I guess.

[mikehalloran]

Welcome back!

There are some growing pains with 9 which is now 9.01. Updating your files from 7 may be seamless or not, depending on some tools that are now part of the Trim plugin. If you see that a particular DP 7 plug cannot be found, check for that. Phase reversal is one that comes to mind.

If some 3rd party plugs don't appear in 9, it could be the Carbon/Cocoa issue or it could be that 32bit only plugins will not appear in a 64bit DAW. The quickest way to check is to open up DP 9 in 32bit mode and see if those plugs now show up in the list.

I have the Antares Mic modeler but have never used it, not once. It is bundled in the Vocal Suite. I bought the hardware version when GC closed it out a decade or so ago and sold it for a profit without opening the box. To me, emulating the frequency response of a mic is not the same as using the microphone itself. Maybe I've missed out, maybe not.

Having said that, if the new Slate tool can work for you and improve your sound, tell us!

[donreynolds]

I did update to 9.01. I am running 64 bit. Haven't checked all my plugs yet, but thanks for the tip. I figured some would have to be updated. I was just surprised all cleared the evaluation at the beginning.

I def. will let you know. Have to find out how much he is going to want for the system first. I agree though, the actual mics are better of course. But only available to some unfortunately. If Slate can at least come pretty close for a reasonable price, that will be good enough for me.

[Shooshie]

I've used one or two mic modelers, but I don't remember how I came by them or what brand they were. That's probably why I wasn't impressed with the results. Maybe someone like Slate could produce something impressive. However, I have my doubts. Here's why. A few years ago I upgraded my studio mics. I got a full round of Neumans and AKG 414s. It took me about a year to understand how to use them. I noticed differences right off the bat, but noticing differences and using those differences creatively are two different things. How does that work with a mic modeler?

Maybe it's the same thing. Maybe you have to use a mic modeler for a year to know what you want to use where and when. I've been around U87s and 414s all my life, but wasn't the engineer, but an instrumentalist at a session. I was kind of familiar with their sounds, and with a lot of the lore. But using them was a huge comeuppance. My first surprise was that I could almost get a 414 to cancel a Neumann U87 by reversing the phase. The difference between them is minuscule, and yet it can be huge, depending on how you use it. It's learning how to do that which has taken some time. Of course, I'm not recording new people every single day, so naturally it's going to take me longer to figure it all out, but for the first year I recorded many tracks with three sets of mics, then compared what I was hearing between them. That's pretty educational.

The 2nd thing I learned was that using a tube mic like the Neumann M149 is an art, not a science. It sounds worse than the U87, most of the time, but if you learn where and when to use it, you can get some special sound from it. Most of the time I prefer the U87 for vocals, and I'm starting to hear that "hit record" sound from them, but I think there's just more to learn about the M149 tube mic, and it may be more interesting for instrumentals. The 414s are amazing in their clarity for acoustic guitar, and yet I have great difficulty putting my finger on exactly what it is that I'm hearing. Maybe it's what they are rejecting that is the key. Ask me in another 5 years. I wish I could have afforded these mics 20 years ago.

So, my point is that the mic modeler may be able to color the sound, but it can't reject extraneous room reflections, or change clarity or focus, or respond to mic position. Can it? Digital wizardry never ceases to amaze me, but I just don't see how it could be done. It's taken me this much time to really get a feel for what I'm doing with these amazing mics, and I have to wonder if that kind of subtlety can be digitally compensated.

Shooshie

[Phil O]

...Steven Slate has announced that he is coming out with a mic system and preamp that will absolutely duplicate $20-30K mics...
...I heard that Slate had been working two years on the algorithms...

I'm confused. Is this hardware or software? Or both?

Phil

[mikehalloran]

When mic modeler a first became popular, they were being sold on the premise that one could make an SM57 sound like anything you wanted.

Since a 57 is designed for the old Bell 600 Ohm standard (that's how old it is) it has a lot of problems when it sees more than 1k input. (The 1:10 rule of thumb definitely does not apply to this mic, 1:4 is ideal) The overshoot on the high end and distortion in the bottom may be what helps give an SM57 that special 'flavor' on toms and speaker cabinets but it does not go away with mic modeling.

Most mic pres are 1.5k 3k. A Mackie is 2.4k Ohms.

Anyway, you need a good microphone to start or it's a waste of money. It will be interesting to see what Mr. Slate can do with this.

I just bought a Cloudlifter CL-z for use with some vintage dynamic and ribbon mics I own. You can bet that one of the first mics I tried it on was my SM57 and 58 with the 12dB boost and the input set about as close to 600 as I could ballpark. Huge difference! It sounds like a decent mic now, not great but useful. Sweetwater made me a good deal on it.
http://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/CLZCloud

[donreynolds]

Phil, From my understanding it is a mic and a preamp system especially designed to be neutral? the software complements it. Not sure how that works but he discusses it in his ad video.

[James Steele]

Phil, From my understanding it is a mic and a preamp system especially designed to be neutral? the software complements it. Not sure how that works but he discusses it in his ad video.

From what I've seen on it, it sounds much more plausible than a software-only system. It works in tandem with a specially-designed mic-pre and microphone. Also if Fabrice Gabriel is working on the software side of this, I can't say anything is impossible.

[Shooshie]

Also if Fabrice Gabriel is working on the software side of this, I can't say anything is impossible.

True, that.

And I didn't know it had a dedicated mic. I guess that does change things a bit.

Shoosh

[Shooshie]

I just bought a Cloudlifter CL-z for use with some vintage dynamic and ribbon mics I own. You can bet that one of the first mics I tried it on was my SM57 and 58 with the 12dB boost and the input set about as close to 600 as I could ballpark. Huge difference! It sounds like a decent mic now, not great but useful. Sweetwater made me a good deal on it.
http://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/CLZCloud

Mike, tell me more about this Cloudlifter. Are we talking about ANY mic? Or is it for dynamic mics like the Shure SM 57? Would it benefit a U87 or 414?

That knob; is that adjusting impedance? It says HPF above it, and that's confusing me. Or is it talking about HPF for ohms, not Hz? Hmm... that makes more sense. I guess I can assume that HPF is for impedance, filtering out powerful signals.

When you flip off the HPF, does the dial actually do anything?

Just trying to wrap my head around what exactly this little beast is doing. For $300, it's worth trying, but is it something I'm going to want to buy for every mic?

Shoosh

[James Steele]

And I didn't know it had a dedicated mic. I guess that does change things a bit.

I seem to recall it did. I could be wrong, but I think the only way it could really work would be to have both components manufactured to very tight specs.

[Robert Randolph]

Slate VMS comes with a mic AND a preamp.