Get the sound of top-tier studio microphones with Lava from Acustica Audio

[jens]

Maybe try it out first before writing it off as snake oil.

And then?

You would need to have access to the original mic your loaded for emulation in order to verify how close it comes...

[seangm]

del

[Unaspected]

Maybe try it out first before writing it off as snake oil.

And then?

You would need to have access to the original mic your loaded for emulation in order to verify how close it comes...

Do you refuse to buy synth emulations unless you own the original hardware synth to compare it to? Who TF cares if it sounds good.

Just buy plugin because plugin?

[seangm]

Maybe try it out first before writing it off as snake oil.

And then?

You would need to have access to the original mic your loaded for emulation in order to verify how close it comes...

Do you refuse to buy synth emulations unless you own the original hardware synth to compare it to? Who TF cares if it sounds good.

Just buy plugin because plugin?

Exactly

[jens]

Btw. top-tier studio mics ideally have no sound of their own…

But they do. Most high-end, studio mics are known for their sound. Not only that, but if choosing a mic for your own vocal you need to try the mic specifically to hear how it sounds with your vocal, to see if the mic compliments your vocal or not.

It's reference/measurement mics like some Earthworks or DPA mics and similar which can be said to offer a truly neutral sound.

Yes...

but to add: to be honest I still don't know nearly enough about microphones myself, but what I do know is that besides a frequency response they have a transient response too, which depends on both their transducer and their electronics. And even if you have two condenser mics which are both (say) tube or FET and an identically sized diaphragm which is in both cases the same: single- or double-sided (another quite relevant factor) and both are the same in regards to being center- or edge-terminated, both can still can have a significantly different transient response depending on the material and thickness and regularity and tension of the diaphragm. And depending on what you use them this difference could be rather significant or barely noticeable.

E.g. strummed acoustic steelstring guitar is often notoriously difficult to record nicely (and I have the scars to prove it) because the mic will tend to have difficulties to react fast enough... this is a strictly physical problem as the diaphragm will have to bend and return quickly enough to catch all the transients and smoothly enough to do it cleanly, which might be highly relevant to the rhythmical performance. (Of course there's a myriad of other relevant physical factors too and as I said I do not know nearly enough about them).

How are you gonna correct that after the fact? How are you going to emulate the potentially faster and more stable movement of a higher-quality/more adequate diaphragm?

[Unaspected]

Maybe try it out first before writing it off as snake oil.

And then?

You would need to have access to the original mic your loaded for emulation in order to verify how close it comes...

Do you refuse to buy synth emulations unless you own the original hardware synth to compare it to? Who TF cares if it sounds good.

Just buy plugin because plugin?

Exactly

I think that the selling point here is obviously to make people feel as though they have just acquired a massive case full of very expensive microphones. There's an old Antares microphone modeller which was marketed as being able to transform certain microphones into other microphones: A Shure SM58 into a Neumann U87, for example. Obviously this is just marketing - the only way you're going to get a recording to sound like a certain microphone is to purchase that microphone - or a clone or equivalent that comes close. However, where I think a plugin like this has strength is in quickly adding tone to sounds produced exclusively ITB.

[DaveClark]

Hi all,

Based on my reading of reviews of IKM's Mic Room, the main attraction of this type of software isn't the accuracy of the modelling, but the convenience of rapidly substituting various EQs that are not random, but based instead on measurements of actual microphones --- i.e. like Hollywood's line about stories "based on reality."

The potential of Acustia Audio's new software is that it may go beyond simple EQs to some type of dynamic EQ, substituting one dynamic EQ for another. If that's the case, and they haven't said that yet, it would be a welcome step forward. Users would have a rapid way of comparing numerous treatments of audio material with potentially even more interesting variations that are "based on reality."

Regards
Dave Clark

[skarvika]

There's a lot of talk about going from mic to mic but one thing I think one thing these kinds of plugins are great for are giving a little more natural feeling to vsts. I use a combination of EZDrummer for kicks and cymbals and MODO Drum for snares, and Lava made them both play very nicely together as well as giving them a pleasing sound. For bass, I use MODO Bass and Lava gave it a much thicker, fuller midrange that I always feel is lacking in bass vsts. Going from an SM7B (there's even an option for it without the filter!) into a U67, the difference was quite minimal and honestly it may be a placebo effect, but I felt there was a very subtle quality added to my voice that made it sit better in the mix. I still feel that Slate has a better U67 but this wasn't bad. I also own a C414 and I felt that the emulation here was good, capturing its darkened midrange quality well.
I haven't spent a lot of time on other instruments, but so far initial impressions are positive.