(A) You don't have a choice - You have to use a preamp. That's not optional.

(B) The Mic Modeler is pretty much a joke. Nothing is going to make a SM57 sound like a 414 or a U87. It's not even close. It's more or less a glorified EQ.

The top mics for rap, hip-hop, etc are the Telefunken C12, the AKG version, the Sony C800G, etc, etc. Anything bright on the top end. Your modeler won't have those. Get your money back. That box is not the right tool for the job. What you are seeking (if you are seeking the exact same quality as a major label) might by had with an ADK TT, an Avalon or some other high voltage clean preamp, and maybe some multiband compression/limiting. Really you need what the pros have to get what you are hearing on CDs. But you have to start somewhere. It might be cheaper to book a room with all of the same exact gear and a good engineer.

Massive Mastering wrote: (A) You don't have a choice - You have to use a preamp. That's not optional.

(B) The Mic Modeler is pretty much a joke. Nothing is going to make a SM57 sound like a 414 or a U87. It's not even close. It's more or less a glorified EQ.

If you had, say, a U87 that you wanted to make sound like a SM57, would it work?

That's how I heard it described at Full Sail-- use a high-quality mic and make it into ANOTHER high-quality mic.

I cant afford to get the exact sound I'm looking for. I want That Industry standard sound but DAMN... The Telefunken Mic cost as much as a down payment on a cheap house (lol). What do you guys think about using a
SM57 with the Presonus Micpre. By The way I'm very appreciative of all the replies you guys are a godsend and if any of you are interested I'll send you free copies of my project and a tee shirt when I wrap this thing up.
To tell you a little about me...I'm a hip hop artist ( No Not like what you hear on the radio because most of that stuff on the radio sounds the same and we will all forget it as soon as next years "Next big thing comes out" you know how that goes) anyway...I started producing 6 years ago because producers were charging to much and the ones i was dealing with are too caught up with sounding exactly like someone else all the time. I got some software (Sonar 5, Soundforge 7, Reason 3.0, and Damn near 300 different plug ins) I made most of my own tracks (unmixed) I write all of my own lyrics and I wear about a million different hats (It' doesn't help when you have a peanut head). I rely on controlled testing and reading materials to gain skills and knowledge about actually recording. I don't know sh#$ about engineering but I'm learning and I thank you guys for being a part of that process. Let me know what you think about that Shure SM57 mic and the presonus micpre and let me know if i need a mic amp too.

Hip hop Mics & Mic modeler...

Yo I just found the updated Presets for Mic Mod And they include the following

Shure ksm32
Sony c800g
Telefunken U47

I was thinking about using one of these as an output preset and using a Shure beta 57A as the input. I know there is no way to completely get over the fact that some of these mics cost like $8,000 but i'm thinking that maybe (please god) just maybe i might be able to get a little bit of their eq characteristics.

Re: Hip hop Mics & Mic modeler...

empri330 wrote: Yo I just found the updated Presets for Mic Mod And they include the following

Shure ksm32
Sony c800g
Telefunken U47

I was thinking about using one of these as an output preset and using a Shure beta 57A as the input. I know there is no way to completely get over the fact that some of these mics cost like $8,000 but i'm thinking that maybe (please god) just maybe i might be able to get a little bit of their eq characteristics.

Look, the logic is stupid. You can't make a modeled mic sound like the real deal. The 57A reacts completely different to the condenser mics, and it being a beta with NDym magnets does horrid things to the sound. So the Antares is supposed to eliminate the effects of the 57A and then make it sound like a Sony? Hardly.

It is not just about reproducing a signature EQ. It is sensitivity, off axis rejection, proximity, dynamics, etc. You cannot make one mic sound like another.

Great vocal tracks have been made with cheap mics. No plugin or mic in the world will write good lyrics and make you perform well.

Stop worrying about the gear because gear doesn't sell records....performances do.

Thanks therecordingart. I'll stop worryin a little

empri330 wrote: Thanks therecordingart. I'll stop worryin a little

Look at Wu Tang's album...i think it's 36 chambers. One of the crappiest sounding recordings that I've ever heard in that genre, but look how popular it was.

But this guy says that the wants rap vocals that are prestine and clean to cut. He is wizzin in the wind with a Beta57A.

Get an ADK TT or an AKG C414. You will have plenty of cut.

Nobody says you can't get a clean/crisp sound with a Beta57. Get a solid performance and then worry about clean n crisp. Chances are you'll forget all about it. Save up some coin while you work on your chops and then get a really good mic and pre.

I just did some overdubs for a concert im mixin and i decided to use the good ol sm57, you know, for the "live fx"...you know what...it rocks...through my API is just beatiful...just gotta try and u will be surprised...

Massive Mastering wrote: ... The Mic Modeler is ... more or less a glorified EQ.

You know, that wouldn't be such a bad thing if it actually told you what it was doing so you could learn something. Does the plugin expose what is behind the presets?

If you had, say, a U87 that you wanted to make sound like a SM57, would it work?

Are you serious??

nandoph8 wrote:

If you had, say, a U87 that you wanted to make sound like a SM57, would it work?

Are you serious??

Use a $200 plugin to make a $3000 microphone sound like a $80 microphone. Seems perfectly logical to me. Go for it! and be sure to post samples. 8-)

are YOU serious?

:wink: :roll: :wink:

Serious? No.

However, that's how it was explained at Full Sail. Take a high quality mic (I believe they recommended an Earthworks mic), then you have all the other high quality mics AND the lower end ones if you want to experiment. Or make it sound double-tracked. Or whatever.

well that makes sense.

This is friggin killing me. Seriously.

We are SO spoiled by choices in today's marketplace that I think we've all gone mad.

Believe it or not, back in the day when HITS were made (not "artists" incubated by corporations such as Disney and Warner Brothers), recording studios had a console with 32 or more identical preamps, an outboard compressor or two (unless it was built into their board, in which case they'd have 32 or more identical compressors and of course EQs.) and probably a handful of nearly identical or similar mics.

Now we apparently need every kind of equipment under the sun! 50 different kinds of mics, 20 different kinds of preamps, 4 different flavors of compressors, 2 different flavors of AD and DA conversion.

Frankly, I'm starting to think people are over compensating for their lack of ability with an over-abundance of equipment.

Here's the best "mic modeler" in the world:

Let's say you have a Neuman TLM103 (using this as an example since so many project studios get this as their first "REAL" mic) and a GT Brick Pre (random). Now, you're recording a vocalist and you find that he sounds bright and nasally. What do you do?

You could say you just turned your TLM 103 into a TLM49...hmmmmmm....nature's mic modeler.

Just some thoughts.

J.

haha! Nice! Let's not even get into tape editing (splicing) and digital editing!!

Theres much truth in what Jeremy is saying. Its the thought pattern here that brings out so much disagreement and devisiveness about recordings today. Much of the gulf between todays "engineer" and yesterdays Engineer has to do with exactly this situation. Too many choices and not enough real knowledge on how to apply basic recording facts and figures to the situation at hand. Having gear and simply applying the term engineer to what you do with this gear is a bit of a stretch if you're having to consider having more or different equipment to be the savior of your sound.

As an aside theres very little that a true recording engineer can NOT do with a simple preamp, a decent mic and a recording medium of any sort.

Mic placement, though its talked about a lot on forums such as this one, is apparently becoming a less used function than I have thought.

One INCH one way or the other can be the difference in an okay recording and a fabulous recording.

And theres the capture of the emotion and the creative spark of a performance. Art alluded to that yet no one here seemed to acknowledge its reality.

I have sat behind a large-frame, famous brand console with the nicest monitors and the flattest room and watched preformances go down that not even the most talented remix engineer could EVER make into something exciting and viable.

On the other hand I still have cassettes of performances made on a 4track cassette recorder with a 57 being the 'high-end' gear and they are stunning ....in every aspect.

While I will not dismiss the viability of ANY tool, mic modelers included, I think that capturing a truly inspired performance on just about anything that permits audible reproduction of such performance, should be the goal of ALL would-be recordists/engineers/producers at ANY level.

If having a mic modeler on your input excites you to perform your art as well as you can....If it allows you to feel great about the sound of your efforts.....If it produces sounds which can, in turn, be reproduced and copied without loss of fidelity.....then by all means have it.

The gear is ALWAYS going to be secondary to the quality of the performance. It is NEVER going to be the performance exclusively.

Cucco wrote: This is friggin killing me. Seriously.

We are SO spoiled by choices in today's marketplace that I think we've all gone mad.
...
Frankly, I'm starting to think people are over compensating for their lack of ability with an over-abundance of equipment.

Here's the best "mic modeler" in the world:

Let's say you have a Neuman TLM103 (using this as an example since so many project studios get this as their first "REAL" mic) and a GT Brick Pre (random). Now, you're recording a vocalist and you find that he sounds bright and nasally. What do you do?

A - Reach for the EQ
B - Reach for the Antares mic modeler
C - Grab a different microphone
D - Grab a different preamp
E - Go out and fiddle with the existing mic til you get the sound you want

If you answered A-D, walk away now. Don't look back, just walk away.

To get a different sound, try placing the mic differently. Try lowering it a bit (the reason it's nasally is probably because the vocalist is having to tilt up a little to get "into" the mic. The reason it's bright is because it's directly on axis and above or at the mouth's opening.) If lowered, the vocalist can relax a little and the opening of the mouth is now firing a little off axis of the mic taking advantage of the mic's very smooth off-axis characteristics.

What's that you say? You're now getting too many plosives. You wanna reach for that pantyhose over the hanger (or pop filter)? Try moving the mic 10 degrees left or right of the opening of the mouth. Now, no more pops, a warm and full sound out of an otherwise bright microphone.

You could say you just turned your TLM 103 into a TLM49...hmmmmmm....nature's mic modeler.

WOW!

This should be stickied.
This should be bumped.
This should be simul-posted on every recording forum.
This should be...this should be...mentioned day 1 at every recording school across the country...then maybe a few months should be spent teaching it instead of teaching student to just buy something to solve their problems.

but when you really think about it, with quantizing, autotune, looping, reamping, and all that good digital stuff, is performance an issue?

Cucco wrote: This is friggin killing me. Seriously.

We are SO spoiled by choices in today's marketplace that I think we've all gone mad.

Believe it or not, back in the day when HITS were made (not "artists" incubated by corporations such as Disney and Warner Brothers), recording studios had a console with 32 or more identical preamps, an outboard compressor or two (unless it was built into their board, in which case they'd have 32 or more identical compressors and of course EQs.) and probably a handful of nearly identical or similar mics.

Now we apparently need every kind of equipment under the sun! 50 different kinds of mics, 20 different kinds of preamps, 4 different flavors of compressors, 2 different flavors of AD and DA conversion.

Frankly, I'm starting to think people are over compensating for their lack of ability with an over-abundance of equipment.

I just recorded a an acoustic track with I swear the shittiest acoustic ever made with the AT-3035 To me it sounded so great I added and subtrcted nothing just to try and prove to myself that I didn't always have to carve away the sound to make it better. I noticed that somehow that I was feeling the "peer pressure" to adjust the sound via EQ or Compression. I used the 'listen to where it sounds best before you record it' method.

[quote=nandoph8]but when you really think about it, with quantizing, autotune, looping, reamping, and all that good digital stuff, is performance an issue?[/quote

All of that crap cannot EVER replace a quality performance by an inspired artist.

Since you've made that point, I wonder if you have ever witnessed such a thing in order to understand just exactly what it does to a song.....

Davedog wrote: [quote=nandoph8]but when you really think about it, with quantizing, autotune, looping, reamping, and all that good digital stuff, is performance an issue?[/quote

All of that crap cannot EVER replace a quality performance by an inspired artist.

Since you've made that point, I wonder if you have ever witnessed such a thing in order to understand just exactly what it does to a song.....

Wow, someone got a little defensive. I'm just stating the fact that with technology today, you don't need a great performance to make a "hit" song.

I understand where Dave was coming from, but I also understand you were probably playing a form of Devil's advocate.

While you're unfortunately correct that a good performance is by no means an ingredient in a hit song nowadays, I would feel that a good performance is the secret ingredient in a song with good staying power.

"Defensive".....Hardly....You flatter yourself if you presume to read in emotion into simple comments.

I dont care how much repairing you CAN do to any performance. It will still never replace the edge and the quality of an inspired performance. Sure, you can fix musical blunders.....you can autotune flat or sharp notes.....you can replace weak and ineffectual drumming....but you still cant make a bad song good, a poor performance scintillating, or create dynamics where there are none in the first place.

The real trouble is you hear it everywhere all the time. Just because it is done with regularity doesnt make it correct. Or desirable. Its more like a statement about the nature of this business.

Davedog wrote: "Defensive".....Hardly....You flatter yourself if you presume to read in emotion into simple comments.

I dont care how much repairing you CAN do to any performance. It will still never replace the edge and the quality of an inspired performance. Sure, you can fix musical blunders.....you can autotune flat or sharp notes.....you can replace weak and ineffectual drumming....but you still cant make a bad song good, a poor performance scintillating, or create dynamics where there are none in the first place.

The real trouble is you hear it everywhere all the time. Just because it is done with regularity doesnt make it correct. Or desirable. Its more like a statement about the nature of this business.

Correct or desirable to you. This is where opinion comes into play. I've heard many "doctored" songs that made a bad song good, a poor performance scintillating, and with amazing dynamics!

"Opinion" is absolutely correct. Nice of you to recognize that.

That IS the way I see it. Right or wrong.

Of course there is no 'right or wrong' to this whole thing, only different ways of achieving the same results. I still believe deeply in destructive recording where as you seem to think that the digital repair is the way to make records. I see you make lots of records from your website and bravo to you. I dont make lots of records.....but then I dont really try to.

Technology has passed me by and thats fine with me. I'm still a believer in mic selection and placement....in quality source.....in providing an environment that allows an artist to feel comfortable enough to fully realize their potential and create their art. Its an antiquated way of relating....old school.

But thats just me and hijacking this thread to emphasize these things is not something I care to do.

If you want to start a thread to discuss these points, then by all means do so. As the moderator of this forum I welcome that.

Funny because that's pretty much what my studio is all about, a nice comfortable way to get the best possible performance. I was making a point about how much the industry has changed withe technology. So much that performance can be fixed, and you can have any mic you want with a mic modeler!

Funny that your studio is "all about the most comfortable way to get the best performance" and yet you seem to want to argue with me about making that exact point. I do appreciate your point of the modern age. And I wont argue that its here to stay. I wont even argue its virtues.

I've created a new thread for us all to enjoy. Now lets get out of this gentlemans' thread and move this discussion to the new one.....K?