The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 All  This Thread  Reviews  Gear Database  Gear for sale     Latest  Trending
Copying a 'classic' mic dynamic chart by EQing a cheap mic... thoughts?
Old 21st May 2019
  #91
Lives for gear
 
s wave's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by joeq View Post
If this worked, wouldn't tutorials about it be Audio 101? Wouldn't it be a sticky on the Newbie forum? Wouldn't the suggested EQ curves for "U87" and "251" and "C800g" be printed right on the box of every SM57?

Unless... you are the very first person to think of this idea?
Everyone knows you can not do it. The question is have you ever tried it? and did you get any USABLE experiences out of it. More positive intellectual people might say that 'yea I copy the high end of a so and so when I am at a loss for nailing this weird vocalist' and yes I got a few good results.
Old 21st May 2019
  #92
Lives for gear
 
s wave's Avatar
Does this count as a Granelli its the best i could do... I only have one left... I guess you have to use a 57? but it sounds better than the WWll cone of silence mic.
Attached Thumbnails
Copying a 'classic' mic dynamic chart by EQing a cheap mic... thoughts?-aaaa-ab-mic-broken-sm58.jpeg   Copying a 'classic' mic dynamic chart by EQing a cheap mic... thoughts?-aaaa-ab-mic-broken-sm58.jpeg   Copying a 'classic' mic dynamic chart by EQing a cheap mic... thoughts?-aaaaa-broken-sm-mic.jpg   Copying a 'classic' mic dynamic chart by EQing a cheap mic... thoughts?-aaaaaww2-mic-gas-mask.jpg  
Old 22nd May 2019
  #93
Lives for gear
 

Perfect "get up" to sing a cover of The Hollies, "The Air That I Breathe". Or simply, for normal every day use in L.A .
Chris
Old 22nd May 2019
  #94
Lives for gear
It's not worth it. The value of the better mic's is the transient and dynamic reponce for each frequency. Can't recover that with a bit of EQ. If you have very good transient responce, then you can get close with EQ to sounding like another mic. But you have to start with a good one, like an LDC.
Old 22nd May 2019
  #95
Gear Guru
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by s wave View Post
Everyone knows you can not do it. The question is have you ever tried it?
have I ever applied EQ to an unsatisfactory microphone signal?
My EQs have the ability to boost or cut any frequency by whatever amount with a staggering number of possible curves. I have two things on the sides of my head that guide me into what knobs to turn and how far to turn them. It frankly would never occur to me to seek such a narrow, oddly specific crutch for this process.

Even when I am using a world-class mic, EQ is usually applied if the track needs it to fit into the mix.

Quote:
and did you get any USABLE experiences out of it.
again, if anyone had, don't you think it would already be a "thing"?

Quote:
More positive intellectual people might say that 'yea I copy the high end of a so and so when I am at a loss for nailing this weird vocalist' and yes I got a few good results.
? Just because someone doesn't give you an answer in the affirmative that you seem to be demanding, doesn't mean they are "negative" - much less 'unintellectual'.

Take a tip from this Negative Dumb Guy: Not everyone who tells you what you want to hear is your "friend".

Last edited by joeq; 22nd May 2019 at 03:31 AM..
Old 22nd May 2019
  #96
Lives for gear
 
s wave's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by joeq View Post
have I ever applied EQ to an unsatisfactory microphone signal?
My EQs have the ability to boost or cut any frequency by whatever amount with a staggering number of possible curves. I have two things on the sides of my head that guide me into what knobs to turn and how far to turn them. It frankly would never occur to me to seek such a narrow, oddly specific crutch for this process.

Even when I am using a world-class mic, EQ is usually applied if the track needs it to fit into the mix.


again, if anyone had, don't you think it would already be a "thing"?


? Just because someone doesn't give you an answer in the affirmative that you seem to be demanding, doesn't mean they are "negative" - much less 'unintellectual'.

Take a tip from this Negative Dumb Guy: Not everyone who tells you what you want to hear is your "friend".
You seem to jump on threads of questions YOU don't like, so its obvious you want to troll some. Seen it from you many times. I have no need to prove who I am... I looks like you do. I hope you feel better... tc gl
Old 25th May 2019
  #97
I'd say don't focus on getting the sound of whatever famous mic unless you're buying it or a clone of it, but rather EQ to get the sound you want. Let's assume you record into a Behringer B2 Pro. You can cut the highs to make it flat to try to get a U87 sound (I'm saying this because it uses a K67 capsule), but then you might also want to EQ that new sound as well. So rather than doing that, EQ to get the right sound for your project from the get go.
Old 25th May 2019
  #98
Quote:
Originally Posted by tINY View Post

Mostly for stage use...

RE510
PR35
RE10
AE3300
AKG C5
Heil Classic


...then:

Kel HM-7u
Kel HM-1
MXL v69g
Stedman N-90

Not industry standards so much as a wide collection of colors....



-tINY

It's been a while since I've owned the V67G (I think it's been almost a year and a half), so I'm gonna ask what voices it suits well. Also what voices do the Kels suit?
Old 25th May 2019
  #99
Gear Nut
 
georgehenderson's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by elegentdrum View Post
It's not worth it. The value of the better mic's is the transient and dynamic reponce for each frequency.
Exactly...the frequency response is (if not extremely distorted) less important.
A very good mic is defined by its transient and dynamic response and not by its frequency response.

Just look at the Brauner microphones for example, they are SO bright, when I first heard the Phantom Classic my ears just fell off.
But the transient response was really good and that was the point.

You can improve the transient response with a transient shaping plug-in but you never will reach the quality of a very good mic.
Old 25th May 2019
  #100
Lives for gear
 

In other words...
The microphone with good transient response,
will never bum you out.
Chris
Old 25th May 2019
  #101
Lives for gear
 
esldude's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by georgehenderson View Post
Exactly...the frequency response is (if not extremely distorted) less important.
A very good mic is defined by its transient and dynamic response and not by its frequency response.

Just look at the Brauner microphones for example, they are SO bright, when I first heard the Phantom Classic my ears just fell off.
But the transient response was really good and that was the point.

You can improve the transient response with a transient shaping plug-in but you never will reach the quality of a very good mic.
Except a microphone's transient response is defined by its frequency response. I've seen this noted, and then summarily ignored on GS plenty of times. So I am sure it will be mostly ignored again. Just worth sticking in here so somebody might see it.
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump