Man that was a compelling performance. literally holding tears back rn. your voice with that mic set up really gives it a vintage vibe. reminds me of days when we'd have family get togethers and I'd be dancing in the kitchen with my grandma
I was amazed by ML-1 at start. After a year of using it I have sold it without hesitation. All emulations sounded very close to each other which is weird. With different mics you will have different sound. Very different. ML-1 gives you frequency and harmonic responce of originals. But especially on loud vocals recordings real mics just sounded VERY different. May be it is transients - I don't know. And dry vocals from ML-1 without emulation is very weird on highs. Anyway it's not bad for 600$. I have paid 1500$ for mic and pre plus shipping and TAX.
Андрей, просто вам захотелось чего нибудь нового и более дорогого) Это как с машинами... Первое впечатление всегда правильное, а потом это просто надоедает)
I spent everyday for 5 years using an original long body Telefunken U47 with VF-14 tube. We had an original M49, U67 and four U87's. The U47 was by far the best sounding mic I have ever used. Huge and clear sound best describes it. Very 3D sound to the singer with headphones on because of it's responsiveness to the singer. You really felt like you was accomplishing something singing into it. Very inspirational. Today I sit here with a Slate ML-1 and it doesn't move me singing in it. Sounds pretty boring actually but with that said if I heard a finished record of either one I really doubt I could tell a difference. I can't tell any difference listening to this video with an Audient id14 and Dynaudio monitors. Very slight difference in highs with a dry vocal. I think the biggest difference is responsiveness to the singer. Most people in a concert hall can't tell a Stradivarius from another brand high end violin but the violinist say they can when they play it because of it's responsiveness. Responsiveness translates into better performance for the musician using it. Hope this info helps people understand the real difference in mics. In the end with a finished product all the people care about is the performance. A responsive mic may improve an already great musician but can never fix a bad performance.
Exactly! I think in the bigger picture it doesn't matter. But like you said a good mic can inspire the performer and I think that is what matters. It's just something about feeling that the vocals sound good in headphones. Thanks for tuning in!
Take a look at what Andrew Scheps says ! It’s what’s come out of the speakers that is important. And the most of ordinairy peoples don’t gp around listening to high end studio monitors. Today the most of us listen to music throug the streaming services and TH-cam music. And often use relatively cheap headphones, anf offcourse earbuds. The most famouse and professional producers and ingenieurs in the world have understood this. I don’t mean that the best productions ain’t the better in total, but it’s sad to say that the most of todays listeners don’t mind. As you say about use of a Stradivarius in consert hall ! Offcourse you have an interesting point if the performace from artists depend on hundreds of thousands of dollar mic’s are the case. But I think that is a seldon issue. I know that f.ex Micael Jackson preferred to use a -57 in studio, singing with it in hes hand. A friend of mine have a very professional studio as an ingenieur and producer through 30 years. He mostly use a U47 bought for 3000 dollars. And he was lucky to buy one of the mic’s Whitney Housten liked to use, which wasn’t the moat expensive one. Therefore I thing the Slate virtual studio system is ok in most studios. Scheps has sold hes Neve 8068 and mix in the box with emulation plugins too. Often on hes Macbook Pro ! 😃
Magic in music starts from the source. This is absolutely true in what you say. Old songs aren’t just formed by the equipment used to make a source sound better but what made the source performed better. Old songs had soul because the equipment to record inspired that soul to come out in the performance. To dumb it down a lot, think how a someone uses a talk box, imagine recording the weird vocal sounds for it first? Being able to control the control it as you play brings a dynamic performance… same with auto tune being used as a instrument for the voice, needs to be live if the voice to get a sound that flows. Two examples of extremes that shouldn’t even be mentioned in this topic that shows the same level of difference. That being said… let’s think of what audience you have to play your songs to when not being marketed to the world. Let’s think of your budget. If this can get you a similar sound to put together a production and you make a good enough song for a well known recording studio to see it’s potential, you could use this mic to get ideas down to warrant the the budgeting of studio time with the confidence of the song being known well by the singer, so less time needed. But this is when you are trying to get the absolute best in every stage. If you budget can only see £2000 for a entire studio, then this would be a great choice. This or get creative with source mic and the LAVA plugin 😉 That’s where I’d head if I had a bit more money to work with. For feel on a budget the Tierra Twenties mics, GAP PREQ73 preamp and the LAVA plugin. That’s the lowest cost combination getting you close to that effect I’ve devised… that’s just under £2000. These days, everything is so close, but not quite, but close enough that it’s simply a matter of budget. If you could afford the real things, then you wouldn’t need to look at this, most people obviously can’t. Don’t be afraid to be creative but also try to understand as many aspects there are when deciding on equipment. This is a lesser known one that I was thrilled to see said
@@TheSakuraGumiLTD Yepp. I remember when I was younger and we were listening to some okay local band and people said "think about how good they would sound if recorded in a professional studio". Now I know it doesn't work like that. An okay band with a class A producer will sound worse than a super good band with an okay recording. In my experience a bad performance often sounds BETTER in a bad production since it masks their subpar performance.
I actually find the difference is quite noticeable. In blind tests I often find it harder to tell two completely different mikes apart, like a KSM32 and a Rode NT1 for example
I have the Slate ML-1 and yes, there seems to be a loss of clarity and weight in it compared to the U47, like chalk and cheese really they're so much more expensive so you would expect it from U47... Exactly what Christian says, for the money they're very much worth it, I love the Slate emulations.
Loving all the comments and thoughts. Interesting consideration potentially is that w higher end mics even compared same make to make there can be huge differences. Therefore we would have to compare the same model that was modeled to get the deepest understanding of how far this incredible tech was utilized.
I've tried and compared quite a few vintage mics against each other. I have an episode where I compare 3 different u47s for instance and I think that claim is widely exaggerated. Good serviced vintage mics will sound very close to each other ✌️
Just wash my hairs in my hally bathroom while I listen to Your examples on my IPhone and oh yes! I hear a big difference. I used after the slate the Townsend. I was not really happy with in the mix. Good, but an essential thing not happend.. Now I bought a Gap 251 Mk2, straight in an hardware 1073 and that’s it. For female vocals. Thanks to Your test on the Gap I was inspired to bought one. Happy again.
@@manuellujan5625 the slate was good enough for German rap. The Townsend is good enough for all applications. Really good. But I will sell it, cause I actually use only the 251 for my artist here and because I want to use my hardware mono preamp and comp while tracking. That’s why I bought the GAP. The Townsend I will sell. It hurts, but I need more gear.
The u47 for me. Don’t get me wrong they both sound great but the warmth of that u47 hits the kids just rigs and dogs deep into your spine. You have a great voice as well. Thanks for sharing
Mic B sounds better to me. Idk which one it is, but i like it a lot better. Now i will see which mic that is in the end, since i'm commenting this before i know which is which.
I think it sounds really close like a lot of the characteristics copied over. I think it got 85% there and with a little eq you can get it 90% there and for 500-1k you can't complain most of the people buying us probably will never use the u47
Christian I think your comparison is spot on I knew which one was what your an amazing vocalist so many negative people,they can f#$$&off,honest and informative
there is a bit more weight in the midrange of the U47 vocal , but is that worth an extra $8500? IMHO the ML-1 and bit of eq can bring you in the ballpark of any of the classics..
For me there is a significant difference between the two. Compared to the real mic, the Slate emulation lacks low end, some mids/low mids are scooped which makes the overall tone sound thinner/weaker, and the highs are more harsh. It's still a nice sound, but not nearly as balanced as the u47. The u47 in comparison has extended lows, pleasing/smooth/natural high end, the mids/low mids don't sound scooped, it just sounds very balanced.
I came here quite biased against the Slate to be honest but it doesn't sound half as bad as I expected. It doesn't have the weight or the proximity effect of the 47, it doesn't compress as nicely when hit hard but patch it through a Sta Level, a Pultec and I'm sure you could get a nice vocal sound. Also, for a lot of modern productions, the 47 sound just takes too much space so maybe for some people the Slate would actually be better in the context of their music. Honestly it seems to compare more favorably than some "real" clones I've heard.
Yes! If the ML1 was my main mic I would probably try to match it with a tube compressor or something that adds vibe. I think they weight and the transient response can be fixed later down the line. I actually think it sounds as close as the clones I've tried. Pretty amazing actually. A good colored pre could probably also help.
A was better. I happen to own this Slate VMS ML-1 microphone. It fits my voice really well. It is versatile. Good microphone. Really good test! Thank you! You have great test videos! :)
@@timuryesa I own that Blackbird Expansion Pack. It's good! I like all of them. Yeah, Blackbird 251 is good. My friend recommended me this slate mic. I have been satisfied. It's really versatile. Of course, it’s not the same thing as vintage microphones. But close enough. 👍🙂
I'd give the edge to the real U47 but the Slate is definitely in the ballpark, and with a bit of minor processing it would ever so close. In either case, 99% won't hear or care in a mix.
What I liked in this microphone vs microphone + emulation comparence was the vocal performance 😎👍. Instantly liked it perfect Vibrato and hitting the high pitched parts excellent. The Real U47 sound much better. what will happen if you run the slate Emulation plugin on a Warm 47. Obviousily the plugin is not supposed to be run with other microphones then Vms ML-1/2 but maybe it's worth trying. Using something that's very close to original instead of something that's completely transparent is probably going to add more character than the original U47 have. The slate plugin probably use convulution sampling or digital modeling to add colour to the transparent microphone sound. So Warm 47 + the slate plugin is not going to sound like a Neumann but something with more character than the original version.
In the RAW test, the difference was clearly audible to me, even for my older ears. The Neumann resolves better - with the Slate I had the impression that there was a veil over the microphone.
Well no surprise, the original sounds better. But ML-1 will not hold you back making a good recording. If you have a good song, mic like that, will not destroy the song at all. For a big studio ML-1 probably doesn't make a lot of sense... these studios usually have a big mic collections already (most of the time). For small home studios, with hand full of mics, ML-1 make a lot of sense in my opinion.
Very good video and channel. THank you. Always that i heard this Slate things i end up disliking the emulation, in this case which sounds VERY far away the sound by itself that the Slate achieves is not bad at all. But very different. The question is why people would want to emulate everything from a single mic? if it would be possible then it is ok, but since it shows to be impossible until now i would prefer using my 500$ in other kind of mic that can sound really good without trying (just trying) to emulate other mics. That being said i believe that the only way to sound very similar to the real U-47 would be with those Flea or Telefunken. Another thing to consider is that all this vintage mics doesnt sound quiet the same so emulating something that varies that much is quite difficult: and to me pointless.
Definitely a difference, but certainly not a huge one Given the price difference. It's worth noting that the U47 used in this shootout is not the exact unit that Slate modelled. Slate Also has another "non blackbird" emulation which sounds closer to the U47 in this video. It has more lows, and a "fluffier" and flatter top end.
Yeah the Slate sounds great! I thought the standard mic emulations where quite bad, sounded like exaggerated versions of the originals. The Blackbird was definitely the best and closest in terms of sound both to my u47 and the u67 I tested
I had the ML1 for about a year and it never really lived up to the hype. It never quite bested some of my Advanced Audio microphone options let alone my higher end FleA mics. I have 2 big videos on my channel where I think it just doesn't live up to the "real" mics. Not even the cheaper ones.
Ok! I think it was extremely impressive. If it was my main mic I would probably try it with different preamps, tube compressors etc. To see if I could add some weight and presence. Still extremely useful tool especially if you're on a budget.
@@Christian_svedin where I found it fell apart is sources with real warmth. Your voice has brightness to it. Mine and many of the singers I've recorded with it had much more heft and the warmth seemed to loose something. I will say that the Blackbird package is my favorite among all offered and those emulations are much better.
@@EandVEntertainment ah ok! That makes sense. I mean the source will always be the same even if you change the emulation so if it doesn't work you might be stuck with it. I have a quite smooth voice so most microphones sound good on me. If you're a power house it might be harder to find one that works :)
Do you think running the slate signal through extra processing, such as a preamp emulation or other hardware emulation, could give it the extra nudge it needs to be equal to the u47?
Hi Christian Svedin! Could you activate the Spanish subtitles option in all your videos? So that we can enjoy all your videos in Latin America! Thank you!!
First, Slate used a modified/tweaked U47 to clone. Second, no two U47s sound alike. So, comparing the clone mic and any other 47 will yield the same results. Then we need to get to which circuit and tube does everyone have? There were variations in production models due to the limited supply of good VF14s. So, these comparisons are silly. You might as well put up a Shure KSM44 because that's how stark the differences are going to be between mics. You can't make a U47 or any other mic sound exactly like another by EQ alone. The capsules and electronics will be different types and ages. How will you compensate for changes in self noise, sensitivity, off-axis rejection, etc? You can't. Pick a mic or model and use it.
My experience is that the whole "every vintage mic sounds different" is hugely exaggerated. I've done quite a few different comparisons between vintage mics and If they're up to spec they are actually extremely similar especially if you consider that most of them are 60+ years. I have a comparison up on my channel between 3 different vintage U47s and sure it's a small difference but not big by any means. Neumanns quality control was insain back in the days!
The U47 just has a little more mid excitement, pushes through the mix a little better. I little eq around 1.5k, and a little air, would match them pretty well.
Save your money and just get a Chinese or Shure microphone. I'd love to see a blind test of a Pyle Pro/Samson, a Shure & Slate ML-2 for SM57 recording. This blind test was a 50/50 guess at being right or wrong. A 3 mic blind test would introduce a 3rd mic to be right or wrong guesses for which mic was which. And if nobody mentioned the mic brand or name, did a blind recording and asked anyone which mic was used, I bet you get a bunch of answers that trend towards an industry wide standard mic that is used, when it could just as easily be a Pyle Pro/Samson that was used to record. Blind Product Challenges like these are actually more fun than they are scientific. I mean if you had a software app that displayed the tracks that are looped, they're the same audio wave regardless of mic, after that it's a matter of EQ or what the cartridge & circuit alters anything. This is like going to the audio retail store in the 1970's & 1980's and comparing Pioneer to Yamaha for stereo receiver units. Both were outstanding units with identical features. Comes down to the box they are encased in really.
So no one is going to point out that a Neumann wasn't even used in this comparison? Not even gonna address the fact that this guy didn't even know either? That is a Telefunken Elektroakustik U47. I cannot believe this made it past everyone in this comment section. This whole video is void, there is no Neumann at all.
That is an original Telefunken badged Neumann U47. I've used it and showed it in several episodes. Telefunken never made any microphones. They where an distributor in the 1950-60s. So TF badged vintage mics are usually either Neumanns or AKG like the Ela M251. TF USA bought the rights to the name early 00s and is just a clone company like anyone else.
Man that was a compelling performance. literally holding tears back rn. your voice with that mic set up really gives it a vintage vibe. reminds me of days when we'd have family get togethers and I'd be dancing in the kitchen with my grandma
Thanks! So simple but very beautiful song! Thanks for watching
I was amazed by ML-1 at start. After a year of using it I have sold it without hesitation. All emulations sounded very close to each other which is weird. With different mics you will have different sound. Very different. ML-1 gives you frequency and harmonic responce of originals. But especially on loud vocals recordings real mics just sounded VERY different. May be it is transients - I don't know. And dry vocals from ML-1 without emulation is very weird on highs. Anyway it's not bad for 600$. I have paid 1500$ for mic and pre plus shipping and TAX.
what mic did you get instead
Йес😁👍
@@J_Dubois now I am using SimpleWay MicOne. Very versatile. RK-12 capsule inside.
Андрей, просто вам захотелось чего нибудь нового и более дорогого) Это как с машинами... Первое впечатление всегда правильное, а потом это просто надоедает)
I spent everyday for 5 years using an original long body Telefunken U47 with VF-14 tube. We had an original M49, U67 and four U87's. The U47 was by far the best sounding mic I have ever used. Huge and clear sound best describes it. Very 3D sound to the singer with headphones on because of it's responsiveness to the singer. You really felt like you was accomplishing something singing into it. Very inspirational. Today I sit here with a Slate ML-1 and it doesn't move me singing in it. Sounds pretty boring actually but with that said if I heard a finished record of either one I really doubt I could tell a difference. I can't tell any difference listening to this video with an Audient id14 and Dynaudio monitors. Very slight difference in highs with a dry vocal. I think the biggest difference is responsiveness to the singer. Most people in a concert hall can't tell a Stradivarius from another brand high end violin but the violinist say they can when they play it because of it's responsiveness. Responsiveness translates into better performance for the musician using it. Hope this info helps people understand the real difference in mics. In the end with a finished product all the people care about is the performance. A responsive mic may improve an already great musician but can never fix a bad performance.
Exactly! I think in the bigger picture it doesn't matter. But like you said a good mic can inspire the performer and I think that is what matters. It's just something about feeling that the vocals sound good in headphones. Thanks for tuning in!
That's right.
Take a look at what Andrew Scheps says ! It’s what’s come out of the speakers that is important. And the most of ordinairy peoples don’t gp around listening to high end studio monitors. Today the most of us listen to music throug the streaming services and TH-cam music. And often use relatively cheap headphones, anf offcourse earbuds. The most famouse and professional producers and ingenieurs in the world have understood this. I don’t mean that the best productions ain’t the better in total, but it’s sad to say that the most of todays listeners don’t mind. As you say about use of a Stradivarius in consert hall ! Offcourse you have an interesting point if the performace from artists depend on hundreds of thousands of dollar mic’s are the case. But I think that is a seldon issue. I know that f.ex Micael Jackson preferred to use a -57 in studio, singing with it in hes hand. A friend of mine have a very professional studio as an ingenieur and producer through 30 years. He mostly use a U47 bought for 3000 dollars. And he was lucky to buy one of the mic’s Whitney Housten liked to use, which wasn’t the moat expensive one. Therefore I thing the Slate virtual studio system is ok in most studios. Scheps has sold hes Neve 8068 and mix in the box with emulation plugins too. Often on hes Macbook Pro ! 😃
Magic in music starts from the source.
This is absolutely true in what you say.
Old songs aren’t just formed by the equipment used to make a source sound better but what made the source performed better.
Old songs had soul because the equipment to record inspired that soul to come out in the performance.
To dumb it down a lot, think how a someone uses a talk box, imagine recording the weird vocal sounds for it first?
Being able to control the control it as you play brings a dynamic performance… same with auto tune being used as a instrument for the voice, needs to be live if the voice to get a sound that flows.
Two examples of extremes that shouldn’t even be mentioned in this topic that shows the same level of difference.
That being said… let’s think of what audience you have to play your songs to when not being marketed to the world.
Let’s think of your budget.
If this can get you a similar sound to put together a production and you make a good enough song for a well known recording studio to see it’s potential, you could use this mic to get ideas down to warrant the the budgeting of studio time with the confidence of the song being known well by the singer, so less time needed.
But this is when you are trying to get the absolute best in every stage.
If you budget can only see £2000 for a entire studio, then this would be a great choice.
This or get creative with source mic and the LAVA plugin 😉
That’s where I’d head if I had a bit more money to work with.
For feel on a budget the Tierra Twenties mics, GAP PREQ73 preamp and the LAVA plugin.
That’s the lowest cost combination getting you close to that effect I’ve devised… that’s just under £2000.
These days, everything is so close, but not quite, but close enough that it’s simply a matter of budget.
If you could afford the real things, then you wouldn’t need to look at this, most people obviously can’t.
Don’t be afraid to be creative but also try to understand as many aspects there are when deciding on equipment.
This is a lesser known one that I was thrilled to see said
@@TheSakuraGumiLTD Yepp. I remember when I was younger and we were listening to some okay local band and people said "think about how good they would sound if recorded in a professional studio". Now I know it doesn't work like that. An okay band with a class A producer will sound worse than a super good band with an okay recording. In my experience a bad performance often sounds BETTER in a bad production since it masks their subpar performance.
I actually like the Slate Digital better, it has that sparkle in the highs I like great job!
@Born To Sing With The Guitar When i first heard the comparison i thought , mic B must be the u47, because the other one sounded kind of cheap :/
@@ZilaMike same
I actually find the difference is quite noticeable. In blind tests I often find it harder to tell two completely different mikes apart, like a KSM32 and a Rode NT1 for example
I have the Slate ML-1 and yes, there seems to be a loss of clarity and weight in it compared to the U47, like chalk and cheese really they're so much more expensive so you would expect it from U47... Exactly what Christian says, for the money they're very much worth it, I love the Slate emulations.
Do u know the blackbird emulations! Especially the 251? Would u recommend me those?
Loving all the comments and thoughts. Interesting consideration potentially is that w higher end mics even compared same make to make there can be huge differences. Therefore we would have to compare the same model that was modeled to get the deepest understanding of how far this incredible tech was utilized.
Game changer, I have ML1 and 2, use them every day.
Do u know the blackbird emulations! Especially the 251? Would u recommend me those?
Close call. Thanks for another great vid!
Both sound great! Can’t go wrong with either! Anyone should be able to get amazing results with either! Unless you suck!
Exactly!
😂😂😂😂😂
Every single U47 sounds a little different, though, so maybe the 47 that slate modeled actually does sound exactly like their emulation.
I've tried and compared quite a few vintage mics against each other. I have an episode where I compare 3 different u47s for instance and I think that claim is widely exaggerated. Good serviced vintage mics will sound very close to each other ✌️
Just wash my hairs in my hally bathroom while I listen to Your examples on my IPhone and oh yes! I hear a big difference.
I used after the slate the Townsend. I was not really happy with in the mix. Good, but an essential thing not happend..
Now I bought a Gap 251 Mk2, straight in an hardware 1073 and that’s it. For female vocals.
Thanks to Your test on the Gap I was inspired to bought one.
Happy again.
Hello did you return the Townsend or the Slate? how has the GAP been for you?
@@manuellujan5625 the slate was good enough for German rap.
The Townsend is good enough for all applications. Really good. But I will sell it, cause I actually use only the 251 for my artist here and because I want to use my hardware mono preamp and comp while tracking.
That’s why I bought the GAP.
The Townsend I will sell. It hurts, but I need more gear.
The u47 for me. Don’t get me wrong they both sound great but the warmth of that u47 hits the kids just rigs and dogs deep into your spine. You have a great voice as well. Thanks for sharing
Yeah I think most people would chose the original but I think the slate does a great job!
Mic B sounds better to me. Idk which one it is, but i like it a lot better. Now i will see which mic that is in the end, since i'm commenting this before i know which is which.
Part of first notification gang✌👌🌞. Liking before I even watch it
I think it sounds really close like a lot of the characteristics copied over. I think it got 85% there and with a little eq you can get it 90% there and for 500-1k you can't complain most of the people buying us probably will never use the u47
Christian I think your comparison is spot on I knew which one was what your an amazing vocalist so many negative people,they can f#$$&off,honest and informative
I closed my eyes and tried to choose when i thought i heard the switch and got it wrong 3 times...
Subscribed! Looks like a great channel you’re running. 👍🏻
Nice voice. That’s the important part.
there is a bit more weight in the midrange of the U47 vocal , but is that worth an extra $8500? IMHO the ML-1 and bit of eq can bring you in the ballpark of any of the classics..
No EQ. can't cover the gap.
For me there is a significant difference between the two. Compared to the real mic, the Slate emulation lacks low end, some mids/low mids are scooped which makes the overall tone sound thinner/weaker, and the highs are more harsh. It's still a nice sound, but not nearly as balanced as the u47. The u47 in comparison has extended lows, pleasing/smooth/natural high end, the mids/low mids don't sound scooped, it just sounds very balanced.
Naumann U 47 sounds great.
Great work 👌!!!
So will you sell some of your microphones and get the ML-1 now?
I did and never looked back 🤘
My personal favorite is the BLACKBIRD 251 🔥
Slate sounds more demo here, and Neumann sounds like a record :)
I came here quite biased against the Slate to be honest but it doesn't sound half as bad as I expected. It doesn't have the weight or the proximity effect of the 47, it doesn't compress as nicely when hit hard but patch it through a Sta Level, a Pultec and I'm sure you could get a nice vocal sound. Also, for a lot of modern productions, the 47 sound just takes too much space so maybe for some people the Slate would actually be better in the context of their music. Honestly it seems to compare more favorably than some "real" clones I've heard.
Yes! If the ML1 was my main mic I would probably try to match it with a tube compressor or something that adds vibe. I think they weight and the transient response can be fixed later down the line. I actually think it sounds as close as the clones I've tried. Pretty amazing actually. A good colored pre could probably also help.
@@Christian_svedin Slate team don't recomend using it with other preamps. Just add character in DAW.
@@andivax if it sounds good and improves the sounds it's all good. Use your ears 😉✌️
A was better. I happen to own this Slate VMS ML-1 microphone. It fits my voice really well. It is versatile. Good microphone. Really good test! Thank you! You have great test videos! :)
Do u know the blackbird emulations! Especially the 251? Would u recommend me those?
@@timuryesa I own that Blackbird Expansion Pack. It's good! I like all of them. Yeah, Blackbird 251 is good. My friend recommended me this slate mic. I have been satisfied. It's really versatile. Of course, it’s not the same thing as vintage microphones. But close enough. 👍🙂
I'd give the edge to the real U47 but the Slate is definitely in the ballpark, and with a bit of minor processing it would ever so close. In either case, 99% won't hear or care in a mix.
Bro forget the mics those vocals are insane
What I liked in this microphone vs microphone + emulation comparence was the vocal performance 😎👍. Instantly liked it perfect Vibrato and hitting the high pitched parts excellent. The Real U47 sound much better. what will happen if you run the slate Emulation plugin on a Warm 47. Obviousily the plugin is not supposed to be run with other microphones then Vms ML-1/2 but maybe it's worth trying. Using something that's very close to original instead of something that's completely transparent is probably going to add more character than the original U47 have. The slate plugin probably use convulution sampling or digital modeling to add colour to the transparent microphone sound. So Warm 47 + the slate plugin is not going to sound like a Neumann but something with more character than the original version.
The Slate capsule doesn’t sound broke in. It sounds stiff.
I notice some difference between the two. ''presence''. A little bit of clarity too. But the ml-1 sounds awesome also. Do you use the vms preamp?
If this were a blind test no one could really tell the difference
sometimes this "Low End" is Not necessary or Not Better. so, The The Texture is the most important part, and is very similar.
In the RAW test, the difference was clearly audible to me, even for my older ears. The Neumann resolves better - with the Slate I had the impression that there was a veil over the microphone.
I always hated this song..lol but you killed it..dopest review on the net...
Well no surprise, the original sounds better. But ML-1 will not hold you back making a good recording. If you have a good song, mic like that, will not destroy the song at all. For a big studio ML-1 probably doesn't make a lot of sense... these studios usually have a big mic collections already (most of the time). For small home studios, with hand full of mics, ML-1 make a lot of sense in my opinion.
This is the best explanation of Slate VMS idea !
Very good video and channel. THank you. Always that i heard this Slate things i end up disliking the emulation, in this case which sounds VERY far away the sound by itself that the Slate achieves is not bad at all. But very different. The question is why people would want to emulate everything from a single mic? if it would be possible then it is ok, but since it shows to be impossible until now i would prefer using my 500$ in other kind of mic that can sound really good without trying (just trying) to emulate other mics. That being said i believe that the only way to sound very similar to the real U-47 would be with those Flea or Telefunken. Another thing to consider is that all this vintage mics doesnt sound quiet the same so emulating something that varies that much is quite difficult: and to me pointless.
I use the emulation for backing vocals to get a little separate tone and harmonics before I mix. Distort drums, vocals, etc.
That comment to me, was pointless
Definitely a difference, but certainly not a huge one Given the price difference. It's worth noting that the U47 used in this shootout is not the exact unit that Slate modelled. Slate Also has another "non blackbird" emulation which sounds closer to the U47 in this video. It has more lows, and a "fluffier" and flatter top end.
Yeah the Slate sounds great! I thought the standard mic emulations where quite bad, sounded like exaggerated versions of the originals. The Blackbird was definitely the best and closest in terms of sound both to my u47 and the u67 I tested
I had the ML1 for about a year and it never really lived up to the hype. It never quite bested some of my Advanced Audio microphone options let alone my higher end FleA mics. I have 2 big videos on my channel where I think it just doesn't live up to the "real" mics. Not even the cheaper ones.
Ok! I think it was extremely impressive. If it was my main mic I would probably try it with different preamps, tube compressors etc. To see if I could add some weight and presence. Still extremely useful tool especially if you're on a budget.
@@Christian_svedin where I found it fell apart is sources with real warmth. Your voice has brightness to it. Mine and many of the singers I've recorded with it had much more heft and the warmth seemed to loose something. I will say that the Blackbird package is my favorite among all offered and those emulations are much better.
@@EandVEntertainment ah ok! That makes sense. I mean the source will always be the same even if you change the emulation so if it doesn't work you might be stuck with it. I have a quite smooth voice so most microphones sound good on me. If you're a power house it might be harder to find one that works :)
🤘
Do you think running the slate signal through extra processing, such as a preamp emulation or other hardware emulation, could give it the extra nudge it needs to be equal to the u47?
Yeah sure. Maybe a tube compressor/opto or such could help. Also adding a Neve preamp could help that lowmid push.
Hi Christian Svedin! Could you activate the Spanish subtitles option in all your videos? So that we can enjoy all your videos in Latin America! Thank you!!
Sure I didn't know you had to do it! Ofc. Thanks for watching
Will the processing on it. They both sound the same.
i actually liked B more in the blind test. Go figure
First, Slate used a modified/tweaked U47 to clone. Second, no two U47s sound alike. So, comparing the clone mic and any other 47 will yield the same results. Then we need to get to which circuit and tube does everyone have? There were variations in production models due to the limited supply of good VF14s. So, these comparisons are silly. You might as well put up a Shure KSM44 because that's how stark the differences are going to be between mics.
You can't make a U47 or any other mic sound exactly like another by EQ alone. The capsules and electronics will be different types and ages. How will you compensate for changes in self noise, sensitivity, off-axis rejection, etc? You can't.
Pick a mic or model and use it.
My experience is that the whole "every vintage mic sounds different" is hugely exaggerated. I've done quite a few different comparisons between vintage mics and If they're up to spec they are actually extremely similar especially if you consider that most of them are 60+ years. I have a comparison up on my channel between 3 different vintage U47s and sure it's a small difference but not big by any means. Neumanns quality control was insain back in the days!
The U47 just has a little more mid excitement, pushes through the mix a little better. I little eq around 1.5k, and a little air, would match them pretty well.
Slate sounds better to me!
Save your money and just get a Chinese or Shure microphone. I'd love to see a blind test of a Pyle Pro/Samson, a Shure & Slate ML-2 for SM57 recording. This blind test was a 50/50 guess at being right or wrong. A 3 mic blind test would introduce a 3rd mic to be right or wrong guesses for which mic was which. And if nobody mentioned the mic brand or name, did a blind recording and asked anyone which mic was used, I bet you get a bunch of answers that trend towards an industry wide standard mic that is used, when it could just as easily be a Pyle Pro/Samson that was used to record. Blind Product Challenges like these are actually more fun than they are scientific. I mean if you had a software app that displayed the tracks that are looped, they're the same audio wave regardless of mic, after that it's a matter of EQ or what the cartridge & circuit alters anything. This is like going to the audio retail store in the 1970's & 1980's and comparing Pioneer to Yamaha for stereo receiver units. Both were outstanding units with identical features. Comes down to the box they are encased in really.
So no one is going to point out that a Neumann wasn't even used in this comparison? Not even gonna address the fact that this guy didn't even know either? That is a Telefunken Elektroakustik U47. I cannot believe this made it past everyone in this comment section. This whole video is void, there is no Neumann at all.
That is an original Telefunken badged Neumann U47. I've used it and showed it in several episodes.
Telefunken never made any microphones. They where an distributor in the 1950-60s. So TF badged vintage mics are usually either Neumanns or AKG like the Ela M251.
TF USA bought the rights to the name early 00s and is just a clone company like anyone else.
Slate
Without music please!
You can download the raw tracks 👍