Slate VMS-2 mic instead of two or more others?

[alexis]

https://www.soundonsound.com/reviews/sl ... ital-vms-2

Super review, thank you, Neil Rodgers!

I may be entering a new world where people with guitars come over and lay down some audio parts into a Cubase DAW project. This could be either electric (be would bring his own cab) and/or acoustic.

Of course Cubase has modeled guitar cabs, so maybe I'd go directly through his electric guitar cab into Cubase as well?

I've never done anything but record voice. I currently have an AT-4033a cap mic, an Earthworks SR117 cap mic, and an EV N/D 767a dynamic mic.

It is an untreated oddly shaped room, so we're not looking for an engineering Grammy

I was wondering if the VMS-2 might be an economic purchase, perhaps doing double or triple duty by somehow mimicking a mic that would be put next to an electric guitar cab, and separately one that could record an acoustic guitar ... as opposed to buying separate mics for each purpose?

Thank you for any thoughts!

[Sam Spoons]

I probably wouldn't, I suspect any modelling the mic does could be replicated in a DAW but you can't change the fundamental physical characteristics of a mic. The standard guitar cab mic is an SM57, a dynamic with a relatively high mass diaphragm/voice coil where acoustic guitars are usually better with a small diaphragm capacitor which has a very low mass diaphragm. So it's easier, probably, to have a small number of different mics to do different jobs.

But, I'm a (retired) live sound guy so having one mic that does everything is only a practical solution if you are looking after a Bluegrass band or solo a'capell singer.

[alexis]

I probably wouldn't, I suspect any modelling the mic does could be replicated in a DAW but you can't change the fundamental physical characteristics of a mic. The standard guitar cab mic is an SM57, a dynamic with a relatively high mass diaphragm/voice coil where acoustic guitars are usually better with a small diaphragm capacitor which has a very low mass diaphragm. So it's easier, probably, to have a small number of different mics to do different jobs.

But, I'm a (retired) live sound guy so having one mic that does everything is only a practical solution if you are looking after a Bluegrass band or solo a'capell singer.

Thanks, Sam! I don't have exactly those models, but I do have similar mic types (AT-4033a cap mic, an Earthworks SR117 cap mic, and an EV N/D 767a dynamic mic), so maybe we'll see how they work if he does come over to do an over dub.

[ajay_m]

I'm awfully cynical about this 'modelling' malarkey. I mean obviously it's firstly some measure of EQ, which of course you could apply in the DAW to any mic. Then there would be considerations like narrow resonance peaks, transient response vs frequency etc which in *theory* could be modelled I guess... but surely not at almost zero latency, which is kinda critical for this kind of application. So isn't this just really a fairly decent neutral mic and a bunch of fixed EQ curves?. And you can't surely model things like off-axis response variations either, how could the software know where the sound source was relative to the mic?.

[Dave Rowles]

Short answer, yes. These mics can be used for a variety of different things and indeed the modelling can achieve very similar results to the original mics.

If course, whether you believe that is entirely up to you.

I've got a ML1 original band I've found the modelled models to be incredibly useful and bring a variety of sounds and options that I didn't have before. Certainly my voice sounds better with the U87 model engaged than just the mic by itself. I've also for the smaller pencil style mics, the ML2...in fact 4 of them. While I can't test against all the mics that are modelled, I can say that the SM57 and C414 models with the ML2 are completely indistinguishable to the matching real versions of the mics in my collection.

[alexis]

Short answer, yes. These mics can be used for a variety of different things and indeed the modelling can achieve very similar results to the original mics.

If course, whether you believe that is entirely up to you.

I've got a ML1 original band I've found the modelled models to be incredibly useful and bring a variety of sounds and options that I didn't have before. Certainly my voice sounds better with the U87 model engaged than just the mic by itself. I've also for the smaller pencil style mics, the ML2...in fact 4 of them. While I can't test against all the mics that are modelled, I can say that the SM57 and C414 models with the ML2 are completely indistinguishable to the matching real versions of the mics in my collection.

Thank you for that Dave!

Very interesting, that the VMS-2 pretty much completely mimics the SM57 and the C414 in your studio.

To follow up on the bolded part above: what is your usual vocal mic, and does the VMS-2 U87 model put it to shame?!

(Also, If you ever happen to match check the VMS-2 with other mics you may have, please post back!

Thanks again

[Hugh Robjohns]

If you only record one thing at a time, always directly on axis, and in a reasonably dead and uncoloured room, modelling mics are very good now and really can emulate a wide range of other mics and mic types with remarkable accuracy.

And if you're indecisive, being able to dial through 50 different modelled mics to find one you like is as good a time-waster as any other...

As has been pointed out, though, they can't generally model off-axis characteristics (and usually not polar pattern variations either) which makes them of considerably less use in situations where you have multiple sources in the room.

Being old school I'd prefer a cupboard full of different mics... but a good modelling mic is probably a more cost-effective solution for someone recording solo performances.

[Dave Rowles]

To follow up on the bolded part above: what is your usual vocal mic, and does the VMS-2 U87 model put it to shame?!

I've not got the pockets for a U87 so can't compare. Before the ML1 my vocal mic was a C414, and the ML1 is certainly a better mic for me,

As Hugh points out there are limitations to modelled mics and the C414 does win considerably when I need a figure-8 polar pattern for my M/S array.

I say my ML1 does what it sets out to do and gives those of us a massive leap forwards in what we can achieve in our home studios by giving us access to more options than we'd have otherwise.

My mic collection is more Live focused and so I don't have a load of mics that do more studio tasks, and having specialist mics that aren't at home in all environments is a bit of a stretch for me. Any mic I buy has to be capable of multiple jobs, and the ML1 (and ML2) mics fit that bill prefectly.

[alexis]

That is great, so helpful, thank you Dave!