Anybody get this?
On hold at the shop; no need for it yet, but ordered in March and paid for over the past year.
You get the Classic Mic's 2 thrown in if you buy this month and it has some nice emulations (that I hope are good enough for my usage)
They'll be plenty-good-enough, db.
I've been following the thread at BeerGutz for a year; the first-use reports started around the beginning of this year. It's a bit like the Kemper in that as time progresses, the proportion of folks saying they're going to ditch their vintage mics (often tube ones, ironically), increases.
The rationale is the same too - "If I can get 90% of the way there for a fraction of the cost, I'm down for it"... and they are... in droves... and so will you be.
Emulations of the C12, SM7, older C-800G (the first mic batch has one but it's a newer, higher end, more sibilant version) are just what I'm wanting.
This second pack has generated quite a buzz and is IMHO the real catalyst for the recent hike in love for the VMS. The C12 and that souped-up one... (the SM7) are clearly awesome.
Personally, I'd have bought into it for the C12 alone. My muffled, Barry-White-esque murmurings require that top-end definition and tube sparkliness, IMHO. Only theory at this point, one I've long held, but hey, with 8 virtual mics in the digital cupboard, if it's not the biz for my voice, one of the others would surely come close, you'd think.
The character spread of the initial 3 freebies and the free 2nd pack, IMHO, should be sufficient to service most voice types. I'm betting many won't invest further in subsequent packs.
EDIT: Just in the last week someone in that thread sold his 1073 as well due to the VMS' accuracy of said pre emulation.
Just be aware that all the mic models so far are tube mics 
a microphone is just a "what works best for my voice" and I can't buy and return microphones, nor do I know people who can let me borrow them.
Same here, which is another reason why, especially for the money, folks like you and I could benefit greatly from it.
Even in the worst-case scenario of the whole exercise's turning out to be a glorified audition that results in a single more-appropriate-for-our-voices' mic purchase, a dabble with the VMS make sense.
I did put the question on beergutz (although I'd make it BeerGlutz) (love it)
Thank you, db. It's long been my go-to term of endearment for the place.
I'm always leery of gung-ho promoters, which is why I liked Christoph's low key approach, but the quality of Slate products i have so far speak for themselves.
Agreed, and Steven walks the talk too. 90% of such folks can't back it up, as you know, but he does... eventually (referring to the now-legendary delays the company's famous for).
Which brings me to VMS. Is it truly dynamic or some pattern matching? Only Fabrice knows for sure. But my ears will be the guide. If my TLM is better, I'll cry, but it's not the best microphone out there so I'm not worried.
OK, off the top of my head, the following characteristics, amongst others, are modelled:
Frequency response, including off-axis behaviour, phase variations etc.
Dynamic response
Proximity effect
Plosive behaviour
Inherent distortion characteristics including those relative to input level
I've drawn a blank now as to what else I was aware of, but that's pretty much it.
In short, you need not worry that it's merely "pattern matching". The days of Antares' Mic Modeller are well and truly long-gone, thank God!
Just be aware that all the mic models so far are tube mics
Ok, thanks for this. I read they were modeling "Tube and Condensers" and assumed there were Condensers but didn't really look up all of their counterparts actual workings.
For example, I knew a U47 was tube, wasn't sure about the 67 since I've never worked with it or looked it up.
I'll keep my mics and find out the best for dual recording my acoustic and sell the others. With my voice and playing ability, I don't think the differences will be noticed.
That said, I like the idea of consolidation, saving money by downsizing, so I can purchase other desired things (i.e. Keyscapes)
Agreed, and Steven walks the talk too. 90% of such folks can't back it up, as you know, but he does... eventually (referring to the now-legendary delays the company's famous for).
Well, for one, he's always hyped up and that scares me a little. Considering people hold me as high energy, it gives me a glimpse into how I'm perceived maybe, haha. But we've made fun of VMS being vaporware for so long, it's normal to be suspicious.
But, hey, he's out there answering forum dwellers, and hitting the nail headon to any question put to him. He doesn't really dodge it either. You ask most other manufacturers they will either ignore you or else blather you with PR. He just dives into answering you. He's got quite a reputation, so I guess he's not gonna blow it on one product. Especially at this price. It's not like he's charging a killing for it.
Display MoreOk, thanks for this. I read they were modeling "Tube and Condensers" and assumed there were Condensers but didn't really look up all of their counterparts actual workings.
For example, I knew a U47 was tube, wasn't sure about the 67 since I've never worked with it or looked it up.
I'll keep my mics and find out the best for dual recording my acoustic and sell the others. With my voice and playing ability, I don't think the differences will be noticed.
That said, I like the idea of consolidation, saving money by downsizing, so I can purchase other desired things (i.e. Keyscapes)
OK, now I start to doubt myself maybe double check, I might be mistaken?
OK, off the top of my head, the following characteristics, amongst others, are modelled:
Frequency response, including off-axis behaviour, phase variations etc.
Dynamic response
Proximity effect
Plosive behaviour
Inherent distortion characteristics including those relative to input level
Huh? How can they model proximity effect and off-axis behaviour?
Simple, Michael - feed their baseline source signal (equivalent to the Kemper's Space Wars™ stream) into the mic from all distances and angles. They'd obviously not go much further than several metres, and also probably only move around the mic on the horizontal plane.
Most of the parameters I can think of have equivalents in the Kemper world of Profiling. Dynamic response, right through to saturation, for instance, could be said to be analogous to light picking through to digging in hard. Plosive response IMHO could be viewed as the equivalent of hammering a chord as loudly as one can through an amp, forcing the tubes to pump and breathe as their juice gets boosted and drained.
I'm guessing that Slate would've applied its preamp-modelling methodology and tools to this; the only real difference would've been that the signal path, instead of being all-electrical, would've included an acoustic component in the chain.
That's my 2¢ on it at any rate. Only they know what they've done, but from where I sit it seems perfectly-logical and doable, even with the little I know.
EDIT: To answer your tube / non-tube "question", I think they'll be using the large-diaphragm condenser for non-tube models as well - possibly even dynamic mics. The small-diaphragm model they'll be releasing at a later stage will be used to render ribbon mics, electret condensers and measurement microphones AFAIK.
But the microphone is JUST a mic, from what I understand, right?
If so, there's no way to know - in use - where the sound source is placed in relation to the capsule (neither angle nor proximity).
Say they had an omni mic model (these don't have proximity effect), and you switch between this and a cardioid pattern mic. How would the system know to apply the proximity effect to the cardioid mic, and how much (i.e. how close the source is to the mic), compared to the omni mic? Same deal for mic angle.
My example is very academic, as they don't have an omni mic model etc etc. It's just to illustrate the point. But take the example and apply it to the case where there are two cardioid mic models with very different amounts of proximity effect and angle-dependent frequency response.
The microphone is dumb - it doesn't know if the sound it's picking up is due to the sound of the source, or the angle, or the proximity effect, or distance in general.
I don't think I've seen a claim from slate saying that the proximity effect etc have been modeled. I'd rather think that you're stuck with what the real mic gives you (which might or might not be a 99% accurate representation of the mic models, though).
Huh? How can they model proximity effect and off-axis behaviour?
I don't think Antares Mic Modeler's convolution engine is going away here - just add a flat reference mic/preamp of known (ideally, per-unit calibrated) behaviour and a saturation engine.
Proximity effect can be simulated based on level. Physical off-axis behavior is the real bitch; I wouldn't be surprised if there was a plugin knob to skip the issue entirely and/or simulate this as an effect, if at all.
-djh
Proximity effect can be simulated based on level
I don't think proximity effect is level dependent?
The mic models are like Rigs, Michael. Each is a discreet model whose processing is applied to the known-quantity baseline mic's generated signal.
To answer your question directly, and I reckon it's a great one that I can only guess potential answers to:
Level is level - no problem.
Distance is a function of level and frequency response, so a thin signal from a distant source would be rendered similarly to a closer, thinner signal at lower volume, the acoustic interaction of the room being the principal differentiator.
Direction could be determined through analysis of the phase response of the mic that's incurred through the interaction between the physical surrounds of the diaphragm (capsule surround and the various shapes / surfaces within the capsule) and the source signal. That said, all they'd need to do is model how the mic responds to such signals; it needn't "know" (the software) where the signal's actually coming from, only how it needs to respond to it.
So, to sum up, the software only need apply the various responses the modelled mic ought to have to the source signal (emanating from the "flat", baseline mic and preamp). The response to the degree of thickness and the phase components would all have been mapped to the model's algorithm, along with levels including plosives, so in essence the software can for the most part be ignorant of real-world positional data.
Oh, and proximity effect is a real-world phenomenon... [EDIT] Removed speculation about possible additional-modelling approach.
I don't think I explained this very well as I'm pressed for time right now, but I think that's the gist of it.
EDIT: Missed those responses while typing. Sorry.
Yup. 2 years 9 months old. Steven and Fabrice apparently frequently refine models and the modelling process, so I bear this in mind when I see such outdated data, especially where Slate's concerned.
Looks like the proximity effect's taken care of at least in large part by the physics of the hardware, which is what I suggested. My speculation about the mathematically-calculated overlay to it does seem a tad ambitious, to be sure, so I've removed it from the post.
I did read that it was possible to use the ML1 for dynamic modelling, but it looks like it'd be more practical for Slate to employ the ML2 given its much-higher SPL-handling capability.
Thanks for posting that, db. I've tried my best to avoid looking at it 'cause it reminds me of my Dual Preamp Converter experience. I'd planned for it, confirmed a rough release time with Steven (in that thread somewhere), after which, a couple o' months later, he changed his mind and suggested that the additional time they were putting into the mic models meant that he couldn't even guess as to a date. I was hugely disappointed, as I don't like non-rack-mounting gear when there're alternatives... which there is in this case, but just not yet!
I bought the wedge so as to not miss out on the free 2nd pack.
I don't think proximity effect is level dependent?
I was reading a whitepaper on this a while back. What we call "proximity effect" is due to the sound-travel lag of sound passing over the front and back halves of the mic diaphragm, resulting in a time-delay discrepancy that interferes with perfect phase cancellation. The result is that a slight pressure differential builds up favoring the front part of the mic, partly based on the thickness of the diaphragm and partly based on the loudness of the signal. The proximity effect is largest when the mic is closest to the source, because - ta da - that's also where it happens to be loudest.
The proximity effect is largest when the mic is closest to the source, because - ta da - that's also where it happens to be loudest.
But is level the only real influence on this? Not trying to beat a dead horse here, just want to understand (and I appreciate somebody else reading a whitepaper on it 
). So, if you took a singer and placed him 4 inches in front of the mic, then moved him back 6 inches and had him sing correspondingly louder but otherwise identically (theoretical, I know), the frequency response would be exactly the same?
Anyway, I'm seriously considering selling my mics and external preamp to help fund a VMS. Have to decide before September 30th to get the classic tubes 2 pack.
It's not that I need it as such, it's just darn convenient for a one-man-recording-band such as me - being able to switch mics after the fact. There's definitely a point to be made for committing to a certain sound during recording - but when you're both the artist and the recording engineer, I'd much prefer the opportunity to keep the two processes separate/fixable.
Exactly the same situation here, Michael.
My Focusrite Voicemaster Pro's on eBay as we speak. Not an esoteric pre, and I only tested it once (sounded great BTW), but she's going. 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.
As you implied, this system's a Godsend for we one-man outfits.
But is level the only real influence on this? Not trying to beat a dead horse here, just want to understand (and I appreciate somebody else reading a whitepaper on it
Yes, that's how I've been reading it. It's weird that there's so little written on this; I started with the Wiki, then moved on to the Shure paper and branched out to a few others, I don't see how one can interpret the conclusions differently ("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!
