Antares Mic Modeler-What do you think?

[SonicBreeze]

What do you people have to say about Antares Mic Modeler. Is it worth that kind of money it costs($299 for DX version). Has anybody tried it?
I know that it is not a subsistute for a good microphone. Also, nobody can posses physically all kinds of leading microphones in their studio setup. Mostly musicians are having a small setup at home.
So is it worth spending on such things? Does it give really good quality morphing or is it a mere toy to play with?

[orangenut]

From all the hype youd think it could turn my beat up trusty SM58 into a limited edition Neumann M149 Platinum tube (with shockmount, signed)... lol.

I think there's a limit isn't there, and you're also going to need certain mics for particular jobs.

What technology are they employing, is it full dynamic convolution? or could I simply get an impulse model for a particular mic and make my own? mmmm interesting.

[sontrinh80]

well, i have a neumann tlm103, adk area 51 TT, shure ksm44?, rode K2, marshall V69, and an SM57. my two "best" mics are the area 51 and tlm103 and i'll tell you that you'll never get and sm57 to sound like any of the other two mics with mic modeler. you won't even get a K2 or V69 to sound like the more expensive ones. What you can do with mic modeler is to get your mics sound different. whether it is better is really subjective but it definitely isnt similar by any stretch of the imagination to the more expensive mics. so if you want it to get your current mics sound different, its a great bargain with many mic models.. but if you want to get it to make your current sub par mics to sound like studio quality mics, save your money..

[bongo_x]

what it's good for is to change the sound of something already recorded. I wouldn't record through it really. but if you listen and think "I wish I hadn't used a 57" and want more of a condenser sound it will help you out. does some interesting things that you can't really do with just eq. it can be useful, as to whether it sounds just like the mics it models I don't know. I've never really checked. but it can make your vocal sound different and add a different character.

Billy

[SonicBreeze]

Interesting reviews and awards by Keyboards and Electronic Musician. But I dont find a place where actual technology used is explained.

http://www.antarestech.com/news/reviews/AMM-EM.shtml
http://www.antarestech.com/news/reviews/AMM-KB.shtml

What's going behind the scenes isn't simple, though, and I won't pretend to understand it all: Basically, the sonic characteristics (including those from low-cut filters, wind screens, or various selectable patterns, depending on the microphone) of a variety of mics were analyzed and modeled. Once you've specified which microphone was used in the recording of a track, the plug-in will remove the characteristics of that type of mic from the audio – in effect, neutralizing it. Mic Modeler will then apply the characteristics of whatever target microphone is selected to the audio. You're given the option to add simulated tube saturation distortion from a virtual tube mic pre. All of this happens in real time, so you can use it while recording to help you find the sound you're after, or during mixdown once everything has been recorded.

[electro]

I want to know if it works down, like from a DPA 4003 as the recording source to emulating a U87 or other Tube Mic.

DPA 4003 is about the cleanest source signal you can get.

[~BURNY~]

Nope. Catching a microphone character is not only a matter of spectrum.

[AdmiralQuality]

Nope. Catching a microphone character is not only a matter of spectrum.

Strongly agree. There's all kinds of compression and/or expansion effects too. And they typically vary widely across the spectrum.

I've heard AMM, and liked it (don't own it however, a bit too pricey for that one function, IMHO). But don't expect it to make a $75 mic sound like a $1000 mic. The other way around though, it can certainly do.

Where I'd see it really helping is for somone who owns only one or two really good mics. Sometimes you want a different color just to shake up the sound. Normally we reach for another mic, but if you don't have any other options, this can help add some variety.

what it's good for is to change the sound of something already recorded. I wouldn't record through it really.

Wouldn't record THROUGH it? (IMHO again), you should never record through anything (not if you're recording 24 bit digital audio anyway, tape is different and you might want to use compression, etc.) But why print something to disk when you can leave it open to change later by doing it in the mix?

[Guitarjeff]

This is one of the biggest waste of money items I've ever bought. I don't even have it installed anymore.

I can't hear much difference, if any, at all with it on a track. It's basically an expensive sugar pill. Not recommended!

Jeff

[bongo_x]

But why print something to disk when you can leave it open to change later by doing it in the mix?

make decisions and live with them. I'm pretty much constantly printing things to disk. no wonder it takes people so long to mix something

I'll listen to something for a while and if I like it I bounce it down with the effects.
for one thing , to make life easier, you have to decide someday anyways.
for another I'm tired of having a great sound and something happening to the plugin or the session and losing it.

Billy

[AdmiralQuality]

Oh sure, and I do that too. You have to when things get too big for your machine's performance. But I (try to) always do it in such a way that I can go back to the project that produced those sub-mixdowns...and re-do them if I decide later on that something wasn't right. It's just a smart way of working, I find.