It seems implausible to me also. I can see how it is possible to simulate certain characteristics, but without the full frequency range to start with, the simulation isn't going to suddenly add detail that was never captured to begin with. Us guitar players have been dealing with modeling products for a while. All of which don't come close to what they claim. Still usefull in its own way, but not the real deal...
Next...

The only modelling type of plugin I have found any use for is Sansamp. I like it for coloring vocals, keyboards, etc.
When are they going to release a Supermodel modelling plugin? ;) Cheers, Doc.

Correct me if I am wrong here (I have never acutally used mic modelling), but don't the better ones ask you to input the model of the mic you are using so that they can simulate the new mic sound more accurately? For example, making an Shure SM58 sound like a Neuman U87 is a different cup of tea than making an AKG 414 sound like a U87...

The Antares Mic Modeller asks for the model of mic being used.
Sigh. I am going to have to be fair and point out that these products tend to be for entry level users. Entry level users might even benefit from learning about different mics and approximations of their qualities via mic modellers. I am not out to slam the people who make mic modellers or the people who buy them.
Still, I can't imagine that an sm58 can be made to sound like a u47. Cheers, Doc.

Sometimes using a mic modeler sounds better in the context of the mix than not using it. Especially with a substandard track. It's a pretty cool tool to have but don't expect it to do anything but approximate some of the characteristics of the microphones that are modeled. I mixed a record recently where all the vocals were recorded with a 58 and the AKG 4070 (?) model improved the sound consistantly throughout the record. Other models didn't help at all. The mic modeler's success is very much dependent on the tracks recorded and their relationship with each other in the mix.

Put up an SM57 with Antares Mic Modeler set to emulate a U47, and a real U47 through a Requisite R7 mic pre and you have a recipe for absolute, and predictable, disappointment.

BUT! Your add here! is correct in stating that you might like the results of the 57/Antares hookup in the context of your mix. Just don't compare it to anything.

Especially, don't compare it to a $300,000 mic cabinet and a $50,000 rack full of great pres.

Personally, I think the smart move right now is pocketing the cash and waiting for the new Stephen Paul / Alan Hyatt microphone to hit the street.

:cool: RW :cool:

Two more excellent responses on this topic: I love it.
Y.A.H.!, glad to hear that you got some mileage out of a mic modeller- if it helps, it helps. Can you describe what applying the modeller did to the signal?
R. Wall, I agree with your position, obviously, and man oh man am I getting excited about the forthcoming SP squared (my name for it: Sthephen Paul times Studio Projects). I am going to start saving now.
We don't get a lot of traffic on this forum, but we sure do get intelligent traffic when we do.
Item- I am going to start another thread relating to this one... with a bold prediction about the future of modelling plugins!
Cheers, Doc

The world is flat.
Man was not meant to fly.
Only amateurs use computers for recording.
Mic modellers can't be good for anything.
Yadda.
yadda.

Seems rather closed-minded to dismiss the Antares without even having seen it. I'm sure modelling doesn't make a 57 sound exactly like a U87. but then my little project studio doesn't have a over a third of a million dollars in a mic/pre cabinet like the rest of you guys.

From my humble perspective on the learning curve, it would be cool to hear an unbiased review from someone who has actually seen the product. I'll gladly send a temporary copy to anyone with a good ear and good mics if they'll do a couple of A/B comparisons for us.

peace, the dog

Hey howdy hey to all you guys out there as this is my first post here.
My experience with the Antares mic modeller is that whilst yes, it does not exactly match any real mic combination with 100% realism it does impart a sound roughly like that of the mics being medelled.
I find it very handy, as mentioned previously in this post, for poorly tracked material as an alternative to EQ.
It doesnt seem to alter the phase or tonal balance in the same way as conventional equalisation. It allows rather large changes of tonal emhpasis to be made to tracks, without the side effects one would have with EQ alone.
All up, not exactly what it claims to be but an extremely handy tool none the less.
Depending on what parameters you use eg: source mic, mic to be modelled and the proximity of both, with enough experimentation many a useful sound can be pulled. And it has a "Tube Warmth" type control which can be quite a pleasing effect.
I like to think of and use it as an alternative eq plugin more than a physical modeller.
Enjoy!

Damo. :)

Speaking of phase shift, I remember reading some time ago of an eq plugin that maintained the original phase of the signal across the frequency domain. Quite a trick, technically. Now I can't remember where I saw the article. Anybody have any info?

peace, the dog

Originally posted by AtomicDog:
Speaking of phase shift, I remember reading some time ago of an eq plugin that maintained the original phase of the signal across the frequency domain. Quite a trick, technically. Now I can't remember where I saw the article. Anybody have any info?

peace, the dog

Hey Dog...Waves has their Mastering Collection that eliminates phase distortions. They have EQ and multi-band compression with this technology (it also includes the L2 Ultramaximizer). Here is a quote from the Waves web site:

"Linear Phase Equalizer

Eliminates phase distortion with phase linear FIR filters to provide more transparent sound that better perserves the musical balance. Hear what you have been missing."

You can check them out at:

http://www.waves.com/

Look at the Master's Collection.