Is mic preamp modeling the wave of the future??

[Ward Pike]

Good Lord, I hope not! For a myriad of reasons.

[.:On The Rock:.]

What's the point? It's just a gimmick.

[jordanvoth]

So what would be the concept here? Super clean preamps in and then impulses? Drive plugins like Steven Slate except preamp models? Wouldn't this hurt UA and their preamps sales?

It's a cool idea sort of but thanks to digital we now have so many choices to make once the recording is done and mixing can be really counter-intuitive if you haven't even decided the preamp. What next? Mic simulator with the same sorta concept (flat, clean mic w/impulse?) then instrument simulator? Part simulator? Arrangement simulator (I guess we already make arrangement choices later in production but it's not the rule), songwriting simulator?

I can just imagine myself with this flat, bland, dull pile of shit in front of me and the task of making it all work.

I think digital is capable of replicating this, but I don't want to use it. I'll use any preamps, don't care, the further I come along before mix the better. I don't want to pick preamps when I should be think about taking a good recording to a good song.

[Yummerz]

Yeah, are we talking Nebula stuff, or Liquid Channels?

[Rolf Ebitsch]

Originally Posted by jordanvoth

What next? Mic simulator with the same sorta concept (flat, clean mic w/impulse?)

Eleven years ago I bought for my DAW the first version of the 'antares mic modeler'.
At that time I found that idea really good.
But the conversion was unfortunately only a gimmick, not more.

Incredible, already eleven years ago there was something like that.

R.

[Knox]

It's really sad that many of you young guys will never give yourself the opportunity (no matter what you have to do) to hear / use the real sources that all these cheesy (IMV) 'modeling' programs / samplers etc (of any sort) offer. Either because people accept mediocrity ("it's close enough") OR the great studios (with the great spaces / air) are gone OR due to budgets not being what they used to be. Yea, I understand that personal bank accounts have a part to play. Though it did for us as well when we paid for studio time in some of the great places I'm talking about / with the sources I'm referring to. Sadly many people these days are just paying for gear so they can stare at a computer, using 'modeling' programs. I'm NOT putting anyone down btw . . it's just too bad that you won't get those experiences.

[joeq]

Originally Posted by .:On The Rock:.

What's the point? It's just a gimmick.

exactly

you can add 'color' but you can't subtract it. You can't add 'clarity' or 'quality', you can't put back detail you failed to capture in the first place

unlike the 'plug-ins are wave of the future' or 'guitar sims are the wave of the future', this one won't even generate any controversy

preamp modeling =

[joelpatterson]

So, are you saying that sleeping and snoring is the wave of the future?

[chk23]

Originally Posted by joelpatterson

So, are you saying that sleeping and snoring is the wave of the future?

Is there even a sim plug for that? "Simulate all the vintage snoring sounds we loved in our childhood days"

Btt: Besides the fact that I don't think that there is any audio interface with stock pres out there that is that neutral and sterile that you can get any plugin results close to the original - especially not within the price range the average modeling plugin user can afford, my opinion about analog modeling plugins is somewhat ambivalent.
Although I do see the advantages, especially for the project studio owner who can't afford all the expensive stuff, I think it is likely to become an obstacle that will be in your way concentrating on the essential things during the mixing process. With outboard gear you have a clearly defined process: Decide which gear to use during tracking and then have a clear head for the essential things during the mixing process. With all those plugins where you can swap everything, from amp to compressor eq, mic etc., you end up trying out combinations of everything and thus losing the thread about what you and the musicians wanted to achieve in the first place - also you take a lot of creativity from the musician who might have been the better expert on how he sounds best with which equipment, and who can adjust his playing to the things he hears during tracking.

[Neonknight]

Originally Posted by Rolf Ebitsch

Eleven years ago I bought for my DAW the first version of the 'antares mic modeler'.
At that time I found that idea really good.
But the conversion was unfortunately only a gimmick, not more.

Incredible, already eleven years ago there was something like that.

R.

Yeah mic modeling isnt anything new, i have a couple of the Boss VF-1 multieffects which i believe are from 1999 or so and they have a mic modeling effect called "Mic simulator" i have never really tried it though.

[MarkF48]

Roland MMP-2 (circa 2002)

"The plug-in modelling section is intended to replicate the characteristics of a number of classic preamp sections — Focusrite Red 7, Neve 1073, and various other solid-state and valve designs."

Roland MMP2

I have the MMP-2 and while I've played with the preamp models, I don't know what the original preamps sound like, so I can't say whether they come close or not.

[MadGuitrst]

Sure, it's the future.

At some point there won't be any need for the old hardware.
There may even be a replicator, of sorts, for just about everything.
We might even be able to walk around and think about songs and collaborate with our friends all over the world without any physical connections.

But that day isn't today.
It isn't tomorrow.
It is in this decade and probably not the next, IMHO.

It's 2012 and the musical community is still trying to emulate musical instruments and electronic circuits from the 40s, 50s, 60s, etc. and has been doing so for quite a long time now, with varying degrees of success and failure. Some things simply were better in the past and will never come back, whether it be due to being financially especially unfortunate in the case of the organic: wood species, etc.

Oh, I love many of the "instruments" from the past, have some of the "emulations", etc. (guitars, mics, preamps), but I also embrace the "now".

Continuing to chase the past is, in many ways, ignoring the future.

But in any case, sure, one day........if we still want to.....

[joeq]

Originally Posted by joelpatterson

So, are you saying that sleeping and snoring is the wave of the future?

not exactly: preamp modeling is the future of insomnia treatments

[jordanvoth]

Originally Posted by Knox

It's really sad that many of you young guys will never give yourself the opportunity (no matter what you have to do) to hear / use the real sources that all these cheesy (IMV) 'modeling' programs / samplers etc (of any sort) offer. Either because people accept mediocrity ("it's close enough") OR the great studios (with the great spaces / air) are gone OR due to budgets not being what they used to be. Yea, I understand that personal bank accounts have a part to play. Though it did for us as well when we paid for studio time in some of the great places I'm talking about / with the sources I'm referring to. Sadly many people these days are just paying for gear so they can stare at a computer, using 'modeling' programs. I'm NOT putting anyone down btw . . it's just too bad that you won't get those experiences.

A lot of young guys do get the opportunity to hear the real sources. I've heard some of the real stuff, some of it I haven't. I'm of the belief that the real source is the musician and the instrument being played. I've found a lot of the modelling programs to be as good quality wise but different. It really depends. One of the big issues with the real analog gear is that it doesn't all sound the same, so to say the modelled program of an 1176 (just an example) doesn't come close to your real one is par for the course when you consider you can get two that sound the same anyway. It probably won't sound the same, but will sound as good. There's something to be said for both, but I certainly don't feel I'm missing out on anything anymore using 99% plugins. I use a hardware mixbus comp, an analog summing box with transformers on the ins and outs and plugs. Everything sounds good to my ears and when it doesn't it has nothing to do with what I'm using.

[Matt R]

Why can't people try and go back to the basics and make tomorrows classics rather than re-creating what exists already? Make new things. Things that sound fantastic in their own way. Things that 30 years down the road, I'll go "Oh man, that was a great buy back in 2015."

I love vintage gear. It sounds fantastic. I love my gear, it as well sounds great. But I'm kinda sick of seeing remakes of old gear, and I'm getting annoyed with companies trying to "emulate" old gear digitally. Is there a place for it? Absolutely. However, it seems like it's being pushed as the technology of today rather than innovating new things.

Remember when you were a kid and you had legos, or tinker toys, or something creative and you built things like towers, and spaceships, and other random shit. It felt good to feel like you were innovating. Now it's just copy after copy after copy after....

[joelpatterson]

Originally Posted by joeq

not exactly: preamp modeling is the future of insomnia treatments

when I go to sleep, i never count sheep, i count all the charms about preamp modeling algorithms

[MarkF48]

Originally Posted by Matt R

Why can't people try and go back to the basics and make tomorrows classics rather than re-creating what exists already? Make new things. Things that sound fantastic in their own way. Things that 30 years down the road, I'll go "Oh man, that was a great buy back in 2015."

I love vintage gear. It sounds fantastic. I love my gear, it as well sounds great. But I'm kinda sick of seeing remakes of old gear, and I'm getting annoyed with companies trying to "emulate" old gear digitally. Is there a place for it? Absolutely. However, it seems like it's being pushed as the technology of today rather than innovating new things.

Remember when you were a kid and you had legos, or tinker toys, or something creative and you built things like towers, and spaceships, and other random shit. It felt good to feel like you were innovating. Now it's just copy after copy after copy after....

This post reminded me of an image my wife sent me.....

[Puffer Fish]

Originally Posted by javd007

Is mic preamp modeling the wave of the future??

I doubt it. And it will certainly not be the way forward for a lot of people no matter what. More likely the wave of the future MIGHT be microphones with their own interface like the Neumann and Sennheiser models with their own AES4 interface. But honestly, even that seems like a stretch. It's a different way of working and requires a whole new series of investments and the conversion is dedicated and needs replaced in the future if it is to ever be upgraded.

Modeling is NOT the same as the real thing. I agree that some of the modeling sounds quite good, but there are natural interactions in the physical world that models can not replicate because they can't anticipate those physical interactions--like the wood of an electric guitar vibrating and resonating in response to the stack of speakers and causing gorgeous feedback in a way that can't be copied. Models can make something like it, but not the same.

With my mic preamps there are all kinds of levels of clarity, various frequencies are emphasized, harmonics exist due to certain circuitry reproducing the signal and so on. A model can attempt to mimic it, but it won't be the same. Will mic and preamp models sound good? Maybe, but they will not replace the real deal for many of us in the way that equalizers, compressors and various effects have. Or at least that is what I think.

[chk23]

Originally Posted by Puffer Fish

Modeling is NOT the same as the real thing. I agree that some of the modeling sounds quite good, but there are natural interactions in the physical world that models can not replicate because they can't anticipate those physical interactions--like the wood of an electric guitar vibrating and resonating in response to the stack of speakers and causing gorgeous feedback in a way that can't be copied. Models can make something like it, but not the same.

With my mic preamps there are all kinds of levels of clarity, various frequencies are emphasized, harmonics exist due to certain circuitry reproducing the signal and so on. A model can attempt to mimic it, but it won't be the same. Will mic and preamp models sound good? Maybe, but they will not replace the real deal for many of us in the way that equalizers, compressors and various effects have. Or at least that is what I think.

Therotically it is possible not to model, but to render (ie simulate in detail) all that. You can build exact simulations of all the parts used and build a virtual circuit board with it. You can even simulate the exact acustic behaviour of wood or other natural materials, add virtual dents and flaws etc.
But even our modern monster-CPUs would have a hard time simulating only ONE device that way at the time - there would be no performance left for the rest of DAW processing. So maybe in the future it will be possible. But nothing virtual can simulate the touch and the feel of a real instrument/microphone/analog gear. And thus we will always have a totally different emotional relationship to it - which definetely influences the way we make music with it.

[Puffer Fish]

Originally Posted by chk23

...But nothing virtual can simulate the touch and the feel of a real instrument/microphone/analog gear. And thus we will always have a totally different emotional relationship to it - which definetely influences the way we make music with it.

Good point. And I really have always been a sucker for interesting gear.

[chk23]

Originally Posted by Puffer Fish

Good point. And I really have always been a sucker for interesting gear.

Me too. Just started collecting vintage microphones that are unknown enough to not cost a fortune, and I really like those old things, some kept in good condition by a respecting owner, some look battered and used - and besides the main interest in their special sound flavour, I like the notion of all those people who held them in their hands and sung into them over all those decades. You will never be able to get that from a used plugin-licence purchased on eBay

[kludge]

I have a Focusrite Liquid Saffire 56, and I find the modeled Liquid preamps to be marginally useful at best. They're "colored" all right, but they're stilled saddled with the limitations of their prosumer+ grade analog front ends. I hear the same slight haze on the non-Liquid pres, and usually prefer them to the Liquid pres (and prefer my FMR RNP over the Focusrite mic pres, even being run through the Focusrite line inputs).

To be fair, I imagine my reaction would be different to the far more expensive Liquid Channel preamps, which probably have much better analog front ends.

But basically, the "modeled" preamp can add coloration, but it can't SUBTRACT coloration, so it's stuck with the limitations of the source. Modeling may be another texture, but it ain't gonna make a Behringer sound like a Neve.

[joeq]

Originally Posted by kludge

But basically, the "modeled" preamp can add coloration, but it can't SUBTRACT coloration, so it's stuck with the limitations of the source.

More significantly, the modeled preamp can not put back detail, subtlety and nuance not captured in the first place by the original preamp

real life is not like CSI, where someone just barks "enhance that" at the technician, and a $100 security camera suddenly turns into the Hubble Telescope.

It's why "microphone modeling" failed and it is why "preamp modeling" is a fail as well.

[chk23]

Originally Posted by kludge

I have a Focusrite Liquid Saffire 56, and I find the modeled Liquid preamps to be marginally useful at best. They're "colored" all right, but they're stilled saddled with the limitations of their prosumer+ grade analog front ends. I hear the same slight haze on the non-Liquid pres, and usually prefer them to the Liquid pres (and prefer my FMR RNP over the Focusrite mic pres, even being run through the Focusrite line inputs).

To be fair, I imagine my reaction would be different to the far more expensive Liquid Channel preamps, which probably have much better analog front ends.

But basically, the "modeled" preamp can add coloration, but it can't SUBTRACT coloration, so it's stuck with the limitations of the source. Modeling may be another texture, but it ain't gonna make a Behringer sound like a Neve.

Yep, that's right. The closer you get to the begining of the chain, the more impossible it becomes to simulate something analog with a plugin/modeling device. But it's something different with compressors or EQs, I think, because they are further down the chain (although I won't go as far as stating that you can replace a high end analog compressor with a plugin). I don't know how authentic IK's LA2A or 1176 simulations really are, for example, but I really like them on my recordings an am glad that I can at least benefit from a fraction of these classics without having to sell my car

Originally Posted by joeq

real life is not like CSI, where someone just barks "enhance that" at the technician, and a $100 security camera suddenly turns into the Hubble Telescope.

[Ward Pike]

Originally Posted by joeq

More significantly, the modeled preamp can not put back detail, subtlety and nuance not captured in the first place by the original preamp

real life is not like CSI, where someone just barks "enhance that" at the technician, and a $100 security camera suddenly turns into the Hubble Telescope.

It's why "microphone modeling" failed and it is why "preamp modeling" is a fail as well.

Best post of the thread!! I agree 100%

[Doc Mixwell]

I prefer "distortion", as opposed to using "Mic Preamp Modeling"

[pan60]

I do not believe it is!
Not even, nope, nota!
I want my pres as well as other outboard gear.
i personally find modeling and plugins are no replacement for real gear!

[Dot]

I agree with Mad. At some point, probably this decade, we'll see new technologies and new approaches. Harvard just figured out a way to cram 700 terabytes of data into a single gram of DNA. It's not a stretch to think there will be a revolution in the way that front-end gear is approached.

[joeq]

Originally Posted by Dot

I agree with Mad. At some point, probably this decade, we'll see new technologies and new approaches. Harvard just figured out a way to cram 700 terabytes of data into a single gram of DNA. It's not a stretch to think there will be a revolution in the way that front-end gear is approached.

the problem with your prediction is that front end gear is not "data". Front end gear is the interface between the real world audio event and the device that turns the event into data. Its where the rubber meets the road!

You might be able to steer a car using data, but you will not easily replace the tires with data!