Friday, July 4, 2014
Q What makes different models of mic sound different?
Various
Q What makes different models of mic sound different?
As far as I can see, if the noise and distortion figures are adequately low, the only obvious difference between microphones must be in the frequency response. I've looked at a number of mic frequency response plots and most seem straightforward enough to approximate with a multi-band parametric equaliser, so wouldn't it make more sense to buy the flattest mic available and then use EQ to make it sound the way you want? In fact, isn't this more or less what mic modelling software does? Henry McCallum via email
SOS Editor In Chief Paul White replies: Although the frequency response is a large part of what makes microphones sound different, it isn't the only factor. Furthermore, the published frequency plots are often smoothed so as to present the general shape of the mic's response without small peaks and dips confusing the issue. If you look at the actual 'detailed' response plot — which some high-end manufacturers still plot for each individual microphone, but many more affordable brands now don't — you'll see that there are numerous more subtle ripples and bumps in the response. These are usually caused by reflections within the housing around the capsule, which results in resonant peaks or cancellation dips at certain frequencies. These contribute to the overall tonality of the microphone, but there are still more factors at play, such as the natural resonant frequency of the diaphragm assembly and, very importantly, the way the frequency response changes when the mic is used off-axis.
Can one mic be made to sound like another using EQ, or are there more fundamental differences?Can one mic be made to sound like another using EQ, or are there more fundamental differences?In theory at least, you could use equalisation to replicate the on-axis frequency response of a particular microphone and also to introduce any frequency-related phase anomalies. Indeed, this is at the heart of how mic-modelling software works. Such an equaliser needs a lot of bands to be accurate, though, so a digital solution is the only practical option. It's also possible to use modelling to approximate the saturation characteristics of any valves and transformers used in the mic's circuitry.
However, there's currently no way to model the off-axis response of the microphone; that will always follow the behaviour of the actual mic you're using. In a real-life recording situation, a mic picks up not only the direct sound from in front of it, but also a degree of reflected sound which arrives off-axis. This reflected sound is thus coloured by the mic's off-axis response. What this means in practical terms is that even the best mic-modelling software can only get close to the sound of a particular mic being used on-axis in an acoustically dead space. The more live the environment, or the more sound arriving off-axis because of the width of the sound source, the less accurate the modelling process will be.
Sometimes, equalising a flat mic or using modelling software to make one model of mic sound more like another will give subjectively usable results. But in my experience such methods fall short of capturing the elusive magic of a really good microphone — and while it may be possible to make a really accurate mic sound near enough like a less well-specified model, I've yet to hear any processing that's been able to make an average-performance budget mic sound like a high-end model. A really good mic has a sense of focus and for me that's what processing can never put back if it doesn't exist in the first place. .
Q What makes different models of mic sound different?
As far as I can see, if the noise and distortion figures are adequately low, the only obvious difference between microphones must be in the frequency response. I've looked at a number of mic frequency response plots and most seem straightforward enough to approximate with a multi-band parametric equaliser, so wouldn't it make more sense to buy the flattest mic available and then use EQ to make it sound the way you want? In fact, isn't this more or less what mic modelling software does? Henry McCallum via email
SOS Editor In Chief Paul White replies: Although the frequency response is a large part of what makes microphones sound different, it isn't the only factor. Furthermore, the published frequency plots are often smoothed so as to present the general shape of the mic's response without small peaks and dips confusing the issue. If you look at the actual 'detailed' response plot — which some high-end manufacturers still plot for each individual microphone, but many more affordable brands now don't — you'll see that there are numerous more subtle ripples and bumps in the response. These are usually caused by reflections within the housing around the capsule, which results in resonant peaks or cancellation dips at certain frequencies. These contribute to the overall tonality of the microphone, but there are still more factors at play, such as the natural resonant frequency of the diaphragm assembly and, very importantly, the way the frequency response changes when the mic is used off-axis.
Can one mic be made to sound like another using EQ, or are there more fundamental differences?Can one mic be made to sound like another using EQ, or are there more fundamental differences?In theory at least, you could use equalisation to replicate the on-axis frequency response of a particular microphone and also to introduce any frequency-related phase anomalies. Indeed, this is at the heart of how mic-modelling software works. Such an equaliser needs a lot of bands to be accurate, though, so a digital solution is the only practical option. It's also possible to use modelling to approximate the saturation characteristics of any valves and transformers used in the mic's circuitry.
However, there's currently no way to model the off-axis response of the microphone; that will always follow the behaviour of the actual mic you're using. In a real-life recording situation, a mic picks up not only the direct sound from in front of it, but also a degree of reflected sound which arrives off-axis. This reflected sound is thus coloured by the mic's off-axis response. What this means in practical terms is that even the best mic-modelling software can only get close to the sound of a particular mic being used on-axis in an acoustically dead space. The more live the environment, or the more sound arriving off-axis because of the width of the sound source, the less accurate the modelling process will be.
Sometimes, equalising a flat mic or using modelling software to make one model of mic sound more like another will give subjectively usable results. But in my experience such methods fall short of capturing the elusive magic of a really good microphone — and while it may be possible to make a really accurate mic sound near enough like a less well-specified model, I've yet to hear any processing that's been able to make an average-performance budget mic sound like a high-end model. A really good mic has a sense of focus and for me that's what processing can never put back if it doesn't exist in the first place. .
Thursday, July 3, 2014
Q Should I buy a hardware sampler?
Q Should I buy a hardware sampler?
Various
Prices for former top-of-the-line hardware samplers are ridiculously cheap these days. Emu E4XTs and 6400s and Akai Z8s can be had, fully tricked out, for a pittance. All of which begs some questions! How do these machines stack up against the likes of the mighty Halion, Kontakt and MachFive? Much of the discussion online seems to talk about hardware samplers having 'superior filters' or 'faster envelopes' and 'punchiness'. Is that all that can be said? Is there any point in having a hardware sampler, or are they so outclassed by their software counterparts that it's hardly worth it even at cheap-as-chips prices? If I were to get a hardware sampler, which one is the best to grab? (My personal definition of 'best' is the one that still offers something unique, even when considering the mighty soft samplers of today.
George Napier via email
SOS Reviews Editor Matt Houghton replies: Hardware samplers still have their place, but they're really not at all comparable with the likes of Kontakt and Halion, as they just don't offer anything like the same spec. There's no way you can run a convincing orchestral library on an old Akai, EMU or Yamaha sampler, for example, no matter how good the best efforts seemed at the time, whereas Kontakt, with its access to vast computing power and complex scripting excels at that kind of thing. Yet there's no doubt that the prices of secondhand rackmount samplers can seem very tempting, particularly when you compare them with the multiple thousands they originally cost!
I picked up a fully loaded Akai 3200 XL about a year or so ago for the princely sum of $35! The boot time is quick, the build quality is rugged, and any latency barely noticeable — and for those reasons it's a useful module to take to gigs for live triggering. They can sample too, of course (fancy that — a sampler that can actually sample!), which is something Kontakt can't do — you can map samples and create patches, but it relies on your DAW or audio editing program to do the recording and much of the initial editing work — but, to be honest, while some people will go misty-eyed at that idea, programming an old Akai's groups and zones is a royal pain in the arse, and the same can be said for the models of other brands.
Have hardware samplers finally had their day, or are there secondhand bargains to be had?Have hardware samplers finally had their day, or are there secondhand bargains to be had?As for the amazing sound of the filters and converters... well, I never really found it that amazing myself, and much of that can be recreated in software using bitcrushers and so on (check out ToneBoosters' Time Machine plug-in, for example). Also, bear in mind that on ageing digital equipment like this, there are a few maintenance issues to be aware of. Quite often, you'll find that the backlight of the LCD panel will be dead or on the way out — they're cheap and easy to replace, but it's hassle and makes it less of a bargain.
Spares and libraries on the relevant media (floppy disks, Jazz drives and so on) seem still to be available, but I presume that they will become increasingly scarce, and they are slow to use by today's standards. A trawl through eBay suggests that such items are more readily available for old Akai S-series samplers than anything else, presumably due to their ubiquity at the time (there were simply more around, so there are more spares from broken units).
The limitations of using a sampler might impose some useful discipline on your sound-design techniques, I suppose, but other than that I don't see an awful lot to recommend them for studio use any more, except that they can be used without a computer, which might be reason enough in itself, I suppose.
Various
Prices for former top-of-the-line hardware samplers are ridiculously cheap these days. Emu E4XTs and 6400s and Akai Z8s can be had, fully tricked out, for a pittance. All of which begs some questions! How do these machines stack up against the likes of the mighty Halion, Kontakt and MachFive? Much of the discussion online seems to talk about hardware samplers having 'superior filters' or 'faster envelopes' and 'punchiness'. Is that all that can be said? Is there any point in having a hardware sampler, or are they so outclassed by their software counterparts that it's hardly worth it even at cheap-as-chips prices? If I were to get a hardware sampler, which one is the best to grab? (My personal definition of 'best' is the one that still offers something unique, even when considering the mighty soft samplers of today.
George Napier via email
SOS Reviews Editor Matt Houghton replies: Hardware samplers still have their place, but they're really not at all comparable with the likes of Kontakt and Halion, as they just don't offer anything like the same spec. There's no way you can run a convincing orchestral library on an old Akai, EMU or Yamaha sampler, for example, no matter how good the best efforts seemed at the time, whereas Kontakt, with its access to vast computing power and complex scripting excels at that kind of thing. Yet there's no doubt that the prices of secondhand rackmount samplers can seem very tempting, particularly when you compare them with the multiple thousands they originally cost!
I picked up a fully loaded Akai 3200 XL about a year or so ago for the princely sum of $35! The boot time is quick, the build quality is rugged, and any latency barely noticeable — and for those reasons it's a useful module to take to gigs for live triggering. They can sample too, of course (fancy that — a sampler that can actually sample!), which is something Kontakt can't do — you can map samples and create patches, but it relies on your DAW or audio editing program to do the recording and much of the initial editing work — but, to be honest, while some people will go misty-eyed at that idea, programming an old Akai's groups and zones is a royal pain in the arse, and the same can be said for the models of other brands.
Have hardware samplers finally had their day, or are there secondhand bargains to be had?Have hardware samplers finally had their day, or are there secondhand bargains to be had?As for the amazing sound of the filters and converters... well, I never really found it that amazing myself, and much of that can be recreated in software using bitcrushers and so on (check out ToneBoosters' Time Machine plug-in, for example). Also, bear in mind that on ageing digital equipment like this, there are a few maintenance issues to be aware of. Quite often, you'll find that the backlight of the LCD panel will be dead or on the way out — they're cheap and easy to replace, but it's hassle and makes it less of a bargain.
Spares and libraries on the relevant media (floppy disks, Jazz drives and so on) seem still to be available, but I presume that they will become increasingly scarce, and they are slow to use by today's standards. A trawl through eBay suggests that such items are more readily available for old Akai S-series samplers than anything else, presumably due to their ubiquity at the time (there were simply more around, so there are more spares from broken units).
The limitations of using a sampler might impose some useful discipline on your sound-design techniques, I suppose, but other than that I don't see an awful lot to recommend them for studio use any more, except that they can be used without a computer, which might be reason enough in itself, I suppose.
Wednesday, July 2, 2014
Independence Day Special!
Independence Day Special!
Download "Run Free Anthem" with 40% off and the album at a discount price. Look for the next album single release of
"No Limit to the Skies*"
later this month.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)