Antares mic modeler did this more than twenty years ago (!), i'm sure that UA's take is far superior but i just wanted to say the possibility already existed. i used it all the time back in the day!
Pete just gave away why the Andertons demos always have too much fizz and people complain about the sound. He said the SM57 is pointed direct at the middle of the cap, the standard for a SM57 is actually at the cap edge, and it makes a huge difference. The R121 would be more suited on the center cap
I know nothing about mics, but this seems really cool. I can hear the minor differences, but only with headphones and ABing. In a mix, post-EQ, I wouldn't be able to tell the real thing from the model. And it all sounds good, regardless. I can see a lot of use cases for these for beginners like me: small home studio; permanent installation in an isocab with the flexibility/convenience of software adjustments; and experimenting with unique "software" mics that don't exist in the real world by using mismatched source mic settings.
Of course, if you really want the SM57 sound, you can buy it cheaper than the SD-3. Still, this modeling software/hardware is very handy for those that only want to buy a few mics.
I think your budget is the big thing here. If you can afford to pair the R121 and 57 and your recording in this context for youtube etc - thats definitely still the way to go. But if your budget wont stretch to that as its ALOT of money - this is great to give you much more options and still proper recording.
The only half an hour of mic talk I could handle was Pop Quiz on a Saturday afternoon. Unless it was the early nineties, and then it was half an hour of Chris talk.
Yeah. Imo they're selling this wrong. They've done a ton of work measuring how the various mics react to proximity and rotation, measured against their own mics, and put that very complex EQ into simple controls. So yes it's a simple idea but there's a ton of effort behind it. But no, they're selling it like a magic gimmick. Sometimes the complicated truth is just better than the fancy description.
For listening I have used the Sony WH-1000XM4 headphones and to me both sounds with the 57 and SD-3 are identical! With the Royer 121 and the SD-7 is the slight difference but sounds big and overall good! Amazing! Maybe the precise measuring should be done in the music lab, studio.
I would love to hear the SD5 being used as well. Great demo of this equip, thanks! Which model UA mic would you use to record an acoustic guitar - both from an acoustic amp such as a Da Capo75, and purely acoustic?
@@johnelcanrab2114 They have developed a product that is basically mic eq profile. I have no problem with the product itself.. but modelling sure is the buzzword of the day for what that is basically just changing the EQ curve of your recording.
Software can’t recreate the harmonics a microphone didn’t capture to begin with. The UA was muffled and mid heavy compared to the royer. The 57 emulation was better, but why emulate a $99 microphone to begin with?
I just think the problem with all these modelers and computer generated sounds is really just taking a lot of colors out of the coloring box and really making everyone have the same kind of sound and it's amazing how that happened when supposedly we have millions of options now but if you go listen to songs being recorded now it all sounds exactly the same
Can we get a speaker SIZE comparison with IDENTICAL SPEAKER MODELS??? There are videos out there but they all use different speaker models and act like it doesn't matter. It's starting to piss me off because it reminds me how incapable many people are to think.
That looks awesome… but can someone convince me this is not going full circle modelling wise? As in how is it better than just sticking to manipulating DI signal with existing IR capability in post?
These are microphones. For a guitarist with no real amps these are useless. For a guitarist with a decent collection of amps and cabs, these would allow you to capture your actual amps and experiment with different mics instead of using sims or a load box and IRs. For a hobbyist engineer, these can be used to mic up anything (electric guitars, bass, acoustics, vocals, strings, horns etc.) without having to buy dozens of different microphones.
Why would you need a specific mic to use this software? It seems all you'd need is any mic signal and then you could use one of their mic models. Isn't this, for example, saying you need to install a neural DSP brand pickup to use the quad cortex software?
The models aren’t based on a flat response, but rather on the frequency response of their corresponding modelling microphone. Applying them to any other microphone signal would not sound correct. Just as an obvious example I assume nobody would do, applying the 57 model on an actual 57 won’t make it sound like a 57 - it will double up on the colouration of the 57 leading to twice the upper midrange focus and twice the low frequency rolloff. While most mics are designed to sound good on certain sources, I assume these are instead designed to be as uncoloured and full range as possible to have as much information as possible to apply the modelling to.
What do they sound like with no software? I’m good on gear that has software with it. No thanks. My 57 will forever sound like a 57. My condenser mics will forever sound like condensers. Plus I can EQ anything. One day this software will not work for whatever reason. One day UA could be no more. But my gear will be working with me until I die. No thanks.
"What do they sound like with no software? " Pretty much like the first segment with these mics where it says "no model". Start at around 12:30. That's the mic before the plugin is applied. th-cam.com/video/TqZ0Hpf9bgM/w-d-xo.html
@@flachmann161you don't need to. You DI out from in-between your cab and amplifier head straight into your interface and you can apply an impulse response of the speaker / cabinet you want to model.
Doesn't affect anyone not wanting it. Helps create great known tones without having all the gear. Modelling is letting people enjoy good results with much easier access.
Yeah, that’s a great thing. I’m not sure if you know how much microphones cost, but the mic lockers available with these mics would cost thousands of dollars. The mics included with their LDC modelling mic would cost tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars. These kinds of products allow hobbyist engineers and home studio owners to recreate sounds previously only attainable at multi-million dollar studios.
You can't model a ribbon with a condenser because the transient response is physically different It's not all about matching EQ curves, you also want to match the transient which I don't see how you'd do in software Good try.. Im sure they'll sell a ton of these but not for me
This is seriously new level for me - affordable mic that can mimic the hi-end ones. Consider me blown away
I tested the SD-1 and SC-1 but then decided to go all in with the Sphere for my purposes. These are truly amazing sounding and tech.
Antares mic modeler did this more than twenty years ago (!), i'm sure that UA's take is far superior but i just wanted to say the possibility already existed. i used it all the time back in the day!
Yessss more reviews of mics would be excellent!
Pete just gave away why the Andertons demos always have too much fizz and people complain about the sound. He said the SM57 is pointed direct at the middle of the cap, the standard for a SM57 is actually at the cap edge, and it makes a huge difference. The R121 would be more suited on the center cap
I can't remember who the interviewer was but he did a great job get info out of Pete.
Dynamics really stood out with the UA mic
I know nothing about mics, but this seems really cool. I can hear the minor differences, but only with headphones and ABing. In a mix, post-EQ, I wouldn't be able to tell the real thing from the model. And it all sounds good, regardless.
I can see a lot of use cases for these for beginners like me: small home studio; permanent installation in an isocab with the flexibility/convenience of software adjustments; and experimenting with unique "software" mics that don't exist in the real world by using mismatched source mic settings.
Guitars AND microphones. It doesn't get any better than that 🤘👏👏👏
I've never seen a "multi-effects" microphone before. Really innovative.
Roland did that 20 years ago
The “real mics” sounds better no doubt, but it’s closer than I expected. I’ll stick to my SM57 and rode NT-1 for now
Wow. They sound better then I would imagine
the Shure just had it, but it was so darn close, more vids boys like this, uber Coolio.
I love the recording and non-guitar stuff. Guitars are a bit repetitive now. Well done!
How dare you say guitars are repetitive!! Never!!!!
Of course, if you really want the SM57 sound, you can buy it cheaper than the SD-3. Still, this modeling software/hardware is very handy for those that only want to buy a few mics.
This sounds like a good first choice for a mic who's just starting out.!
I think your budget is the big thing here. If you can afford to pair the R121 and 57 and your recording in this context for youtube etc - thats definitely still the way to go. But if your budget wont stretch to that as its ALOT of money - this is great to give you much more options and still proper recording.
The only half an hour of mic talk I could handle was Pop Quiz on a Saturday afternoon.
Unless it was the early nineties, and then it was half an hour of Chris talk.
At 4 minutes in I'm thinking erm.....! I'll watch it all and see. Can this just be done with EQ, delay, reverb etc.?
Yeah. Imo they're selling this wrong. They've done a ton of work measuring how the various mics react to proximity and rotation, measured against their own mics, and put that very complex EQ into simple controls.
So yes it's a simple idea but there's a ton of effort behind it. But no, they're selling it like a magic gimmick. Sometimes the complicated truth is just better than the fancy description.
I Don't care what anyone says. Nobody is eq ING anything to make one mic sound like another.
Pete is showing up a little more hungover all the time. Lol
I hoping for an OX Box V2
Wow..... I'm impressed..... Definitely worthy thing 👍🏻☀️🌿✨
Universal Audio making electric shavers? Anyone remember the old Remington ads from the early 80s?
Unfortunately, yes... the Remington microscreen....
Yes. I am also old. 😭😂✌️
For listening I have used the Sony WH-1000XM4 headphones and to me both sounds with the 57 and SD-3 are identical!
With the Royer 121 and the SD-7 is the slight difference but sounds big and overall good!
Amazing!
Maybe the precise measuring should be done in the music lab, studio.
hoping for more videos about this line
Wow, thats incredible, especially for 129€
Can you add/subtract time in Luna?
I would love to hear the SD5 being used as well. Great demo of this equip, thanks!
Which model UA mic would you use to record an acoustic guitar - both from an acoustic amp such as a Da Capo75, and purely acoustic?
Hopefully the software is better than what the Ox Stomp uses
When will they come out with a phone camera mic?
Ohhhhh. Clever!!!
Buy a mic so you can buy our DLC.
Hmm.. basically an EQ and phase filter?
Yea it's that simple. You can make your own version tomorrow. Good luck, 😂
@@johnelcanrab2114 They have developed a product that is basically mic eq profile. I have no problem with the product itself.. but modelling sure is the buzzword of the day for what that is basically just changing the EQ curve of your recording.
@@Yohahnthat's exactly what modeling is. The name fits perfectly
Software can’t recreate the harmonics a microphone didn’t capture to begin with. The UA was muffled and mid heavy compared to the royer. The 57 emulation was better, but why emulate a $99 microphone to begin with?
Looks cool, but I'm sure it's a CPU hog like most of UA's software
I just think the problem with all these modelers and computer generated sounds is really just taking a lot of colors out of the coloring box and really making everyone have the same kind of sound and it's amazing how that happened when supposedly we have millions of options now but if you go listen to songs being recorded now it all sounds exactly the same
More options lead to less colour? qed: name two modern bands sounding „exacrly the same“.
When you do these kind of videos are you still plugging into compressors and preamps or are you giving a sound from an XLR straight to a recorder
Can we get a speaker SIZE comparison with IDENTICAL SPEAKER MODELS??? There are videos out there but they all use different speaker models and act like it doesn't matter. It's starting to piss me off because it reminds me how incapable many people are to think.
That looks awesome… but can someone convince me this is not going full circle modelling wise? As in how is it better than just sticking to manipulating DI signal with existing IR capability in post?
These are microphones.
For a guitarist with no real amps these are useless.
For a guitarist with a decent collection of amps and cabs, these would allow you to capture your actual amps and experiment with different mics instead of using sims or a load box and IRs.
For a hobbyist engineer, these can be used to mic up anything (electric guitars, bass, acoustics, vocals, strings, horns etc.) without having to buy dozens of different microphones.
Why would you need a specific mic to use this software? It seems all you'd need is any mic signal and then you could use one of their mic models.
Isn't this, for example, saying you need to install a neural DSP brand pickup to use the quad cortex software?
The models aren’t based on a flat response, but rather on the frequency response of their corresponding modelling microphone.
Applying them to any other microphone signal would not sound correct.
Just as an obvious example I assume nobody would do, applying the 57 model on an actual 57 won’t make it sound like a 57 - it will double up on the colouration of the 57 leading to twice the upper midrange focus and twice the low frequency rolloff.
While most mics are designed to sound good on certain sources, I assume these are instead designed to be as uncoloured and full range as possible to have as much information as possible to apply the modelling to.
Amazing. Eq.
Wait a second. Microphones? Do yall have a danish blibber blabber??????!!!???????!!!!!!!!!!!!
What do they sound like with no software?
I’m good on gear that has software with it. No thanks.
My 57 will forever sound like a 57.
My condenser mics will forever sound like condensers.
Plus I can EQ anything.
One day this software will not work for whatever reason. One day UA could be no more.
But my gear will be working with me until I die.
No thanks.
I imagine incredibly flat (Like the Slate ones from years ago)
"What do they sound like with no software? " Pretty much like the first segment with these mics where it says "no model". Start at around 12:30. That's the mic before the plugin is applied. th-cam.com/video/TqZ0Hpf9bgM/w-d-xo.html
Hmm not impressed if you are going to emulate mic might as well use a cab sim
How are you gonna mic up a real cab with a cab sim?
@@flachmann161 your question doesn't make sense actually
@@flachmann161you don't need to. You DI out from in-between your cab and amplifier head straight into your interface and you can apply an impulse response of the speaker / cabinet you want to model.
UA against my bank account again.. Just take my money!
Pete needs to learn how to stop asking a question when doing an interview
Dude talks in 80db’s
Modelling is eating the (audio) world...
Doesn't affect anyone not wanting it. Helps create great known tones without having all the gear. Modelling is letting people enjoy good results with much easier access.
Yeah, that’s a great thing.
I’m not sure if you know how much microphones cost, but the mic lockers available with these mics would cost thousands of dollars.
The mics included with their LDC modelling mic would cost tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars.
These kinds of products allow hobbyist engineers and home studio owners to recreate sounds previously only attainable at multi-million dollar studios.
UA jeah
Rubbish interview
You can't model a ribbon with a condenser because the transient response is physically different
It's not all about matching EQ curves, you also want to match the transient which I don't see how you'd do in software
Good try.. Im sure they'll sell a ton of these but not for me
first please pin lol
UA jeah
UA jeah