Slate VMS 2016

    Quote from dhodgson

    ("As the source is brought closer to the directional microphone, the amplitude component of the pressure difference increases and becomes the dominant component at lower frequencies.") It's not like there are some weird kind of reflections going on that only occur when the mic is physically close to the recorded object causing the effect. It would definitely be a great thing to test in a controlled environment... or I could be reading this stuff wrong, it's not the clearest!


    Yeah, I seem to remember reading that myself, both the wiki and the shure bits. Re-reading, it seems like maybe you're right. Huh.

    Quote from Monkey_Man


    The only "proper" mic I've got, a TLM-103 which I've had for 15 years, will be kept as long as I can hold out selling it... just in case. I can't see any use for it 'though as long as the VMS sounds as good as I'm expecting it to.

    I expect to keep one microphone for stereo recording. Which one, I don't know.


    IF the VMS does as well with background vocals as the 103 for layering (read: low noise), I'll keep that one. But the VMS can achieve this, I'll keep a cheaper mic that does the trick for stereo ACG and pocket the money of the Neumann.


    In general, I've had less problems choosing the right mic and more trouble choosing the right (creative) vocalization for my voice in the application of a song's section. No microphone can makeup for the inability to sing a passage in a particular way, and hence altering the approach to singing that passage in a creative way is better than dropping tons of money on microphones that won't help you do what you physically can't or aren't trained to do. Or else find someone who CAN sing it, haha.

    Quote from db9091

    In general, I've had less problems choosing the right mic and more trouble choosing the right (creative) vocalization for my voice in the application of a song's section. No microphone can makeup for the inability to sing a passage in a particular way, and hence altering the approach to singing that passage in a creative way is better than dropping tons of money on microphones that won't help you do what you physically can't or aren't trained to do. Or else find someone who CAN sing it, haha.


    That's true :) Incidentally, I've ordered a VMS now... And put my external preamp and mics on ebay, haha :) I expect to finance 80% of the VMS like that, more if I'm lucky.

    Woohoo! Well done, Michael. If we're all making a mistake, at least we're making it together. LOL

    Quote from db9091

    In general, I've had less problems choosing the right mic and more trouble choosing the right (creative) vocalization for my voice in the application of a song's section. No microphone can makeup for the inability to sing a passage in a particular way, and hence altering the approach to singing that passage in a creative way is better than dropping tons of money on microphones that won't help you do what you physically can't or aren't trained to do. Or else find someone who CAN sing it, haha.

    A more-true word has never been spoken, db.


    You mentioned layering noise. I don't think the VMS condenser's as quiet as our ol' faithful TLMs. The TLMs are 7db IIRC (it was a long time ago that I bought it), and I've a feeling the ML-1 is around 15-17db, which as you'd know is the more-usual ballpark for mics that are considered reasonably-quiet.


    So we'll be going from ridiculously-quiet to reasonably-quiet. Hopefully we won't have to get too involved in the minutia of soundbite trimming and automated muting any more than we would have otherwise. I don't know about you, but back in the day when I last recorded, I was big on 4 and 5-part harmonies, which sound even better when doubled, so that's up to 10 tracks for BVs, something I sure hope the ML-1's noise doesn't prove a challenge for.

    Quote from Monkey_Man

    Woohoo! Well done, Michael. If we're all making a mistake, at least we're making it together. LOL

    A more-true word has never been spoken, db.
    You mentioned layering noise. I don't think the VMS condenser's as quiet as our ol' faithful TLMs. The TLMs are 7db IIRC (it was a long time ago that I bought it), and I've a feeling the ML-1 is around 15-17db, which as you'd know is the more-usual ballpark for mics that are considered reasonably-quiet.


    So we'll be going from ridiculously-quiet to reasonably-quiet. Hopefully we won't have to get too involved in the minutia of soundbite trimming and automated muting any more than we would have otherwise. I don't know about you, but back in the day when I last recorded, I was big on 4 and 5-part harmonies, which sound even better when doubled, so that's up to 10 tracks for BVs, something I sure hope the ML-1's noise doesn't prove a challenge for.

    Funny, I've never had a problem when layering vocals with "noisy" mics (up until recently, I always favoured tube mics to transformerless mics, à la the TLM series). Is it really that bad? Come to think of it, listening to some of those isolated vocal tracks from various classic recordings that float around on YouTube, I don't think they worried too much about it back in the day, either! Maybe it's folks like Mutt Lange and those über clean productions that started this trend...?

    I agree Sam, and I think it's likely a case of, "well, now that we can make mics (and preamps) quieter, we must exploit this", and on top of that there's the digital revolution who's initial selling points were lower noise floors (no tape hiss) and edibility. Mutt, it could be argued, was merely a victim of technology, as we all are to some extent or other.


    It's not been a problem for me, but then when I last recorded I used an ADAT, so everything seemed much quieter. You'd think that any cumulative noise from mics would surely get buried in the mix; it's probably only the quieter, BV-free sections that'd perhaps require muting or soundbite chopping.

    Quote from sambrox

    Funny, I've never had a problem when layering vocals with "noisy" mics (up until recently, I always favoured tube mics to transformerless mics, à la the TLM series). Is it really that bad?


    Layering X number of tracks - if they have the same signal-to-noise ratio - shouldn't yield any more noise in the master mix than just a single track, right?

    Quote from Monkey_Man

    Woohoo! Well done, Michael. If we're all making a mistake, at least we're making it together. LOL

    A more-true word has never been spoken, db.
    You mentioned layering noise. I don't think the VMS condenser's as quiet as our ol' faithful TLMs. The TLMs are 7db IIRC (it was a long time ago that I bought it), and I've a feeling the ML-1 is around 15-17db, which as you'd know is the more-usual ballpark for mics that are considered reasonably-quiet.


    So we'll be going from ridiculously-quiet to reasonably-quiet. Hopefully we won't have to get too involved in the minutia of soundbite trimming and automated muting any more than we would have otherwise. I don't know about you, but back in the day when I last recorded, I was big on 4 and 5-part harmonies, which sound even better when doubled, so that's up to 10 tracks for BVs, something I sure hope the ML-1's noise doesn't prove a challenge for.

    I suppose it's because we aren't using tape anymore that you can really hear it. In a way it CAN be a good thing to a sterile recording where I sometimes add noise to assuage sterility (i.e. crackling fire, wind, ocean, etc far back where it's almost inaudible)

    Agreed, db.

    Quote from Michael_dk

    Layering X number of tracks - if they have the same signal-to-noise ratio - shouldn't yield any more noise in the master mix than just a single track, right?

    I haven't "officially" confirmed this, Michael, but I've always assumed that the adding-a-second-speaker law would apply - double the energy and you add 3db. If this is correct, adding 10 equally-noisy tracks would raise the noise floor 30db, which would be fine if you started at -110dB, but in reality most of us, and I'm guessing here, start at perhaps -90dB at best. Obviously this includes the electrical and ambient noise and interference gathered by the mic and preamp setup. Knock the 30dB off that as a result of the summing and were down to -60dB, which is vinyl-LP territory, and definitely audible.


    Gating, soundbite chopping and automated muting are the obvious solutions, but wouldn't it be great if even the summed BV tracks exhibited no "audible" noise, even in quiet passages? I like to dream of such things - less road blocks to workflow and creativity...


    EDIT: Rookie-error alert! Thanks to @Michael_dk, I now realise I forgot to take into account the fact that to double the energy (adding 3dB) requires doubling the number of tracks, not just adding 1 to 3 or more. Very silly monkey, and thank you Michael.

    Quote from Monkey_Man

    Agreed, db.

    I haven't "officially" confirmed this, Michael, but I've always assumed that the adding-a-second-speaker law would apply - double the energy and you add 3db. If this is correct, adding 10 equally-noisy tracks would raise the noise floor 30db, which would be fine if you started at -110dB, but in reality most of us, and I'm guessing here, start at perhaps -90dB at best. Obviously this includes the electrical and ambient noise and interference gathered by the mic and preamp setup. Knock the 30dB off that as a result of the summing and were down to -60dB, which is vinyl-LP territory, and definitely audible.
    Gating, soundbite chopping and automated muting are the obvious solutions, but wouldn't it be great if even the summed BV tracks exhibited no "audible" noise, even in quiet passages? I like to dream of such things - less road blocks to workflow and creativity...


    First off (OK, I can already tell I'm going to come off as condescending, but that's REALLY not my intention - furthermore, I'm not as sure about this as I may seem :-))


    Adding the first track doubles the energy: +3 db; yes.
    To get 3 dB more, you'd need to double the "new" energy level (the original PLUS the added track) - which means TWO more tracks, not just one. So to get +6dB, we need four tracks total, rather than just two.
    Doubling number of tracks again we get +9dB. Adding the last two tracks gets us... Something... Which I don't wanna calculate, but let's say it gets us just one dB more. So it's more like +10 dB, rather than +30 dB.



    Anyway - along the same lines, every time you "double the number of tracks", you also add 3dB to the "useful" signal (the vocal itself). Which means you retain the same signal-to-noise level, even if you raise the noise FLOOR. The noise floor in isolation is not really interesting, because you can just pull down the fader. That, of course would pull DOWN the useful signal. THAT's the interesting bit :) Conversely, if you record just a single track, you can turn UP the vocal, but the noise follows along. It just doesn't change the signal-to-noise ratio.


    Let's take an external synth playing back a midi performance - here we can assume that the signal is entirely identical for any two recordings (for the purposes of the argument at least). When we record four separate tracks of this (identical) stuff all we get is a level increase, completely equal to raising the fader by 6dB on just ONE track. Both noise and useful signal is increased, but the ratio between each other is constant.


    I don't know how well my examples illustrate my point :)


    My point is that the noise FLOOR is not interesting in and of itself.


    If you record 10 tracks, all peaking at -0.3 dB (don't do that by the way!), and each with a noise floor of -60dB (probably audible) - you'd need to reduce those in level when you mix, which also brings down the noise. Same deal for just one track.


    This is not to say that a noisy mic isn't a problem - I'm just saying that the problem is neither worse nor better for ten tracks than one.

    Quote from Michael_dk

    Adding the first track doubles the energy: +3 db; yes.
    To get 3 dB more, you'd need to double the "new" energy level...

    You should have heard the loud, long "aaahhhs" uttered in the Monkey Den™, Michael. I realised straight away what I'd done... or not done, more to the point. Talk about a rookie error. How embarrassing!


    So, db and I needn't worry about the Slate mic's being 10dB less quiet than the TLM. That's very-good news indeed! Thank you so much, mate.

    Quote from Monkey_Man

    You should have heard the loud, long "aaahhhs" uttered in the Monkey Den™, Michael. I realised straight away what I'd done... or not done, more to the point. Talk about a rookie error. How embarrassing!
    So, db and I needn't worry about the Slate mic's being 10dB less quiet than the TLM. That's very-good news indeed! Thank you so much, mate.

    No worries, my friend - rookie mistakes are like the opposite of gray hair and wrinkles, you get to feel young when you notice 'em :)

    Great lesson, thanks!


    I guess your mind makes up all sorts of explanations when you don't understand the underlying principles, of WHY your new less noisy microphone was 10x better than your last noisier mic.


    I am probably remembering how bouncing my background vocals to get more tracks available on tape (and the noise that introduced) was way worse than digitally with a better mic. In hindsight I'm blaming the old mic, not the entirely different style of recording.


    Ahhh, these amateurs, how cute they be with their fuzzy notions of physics! ;)