Is this the latest way youtubers are doing "Amp where I'm at" vids? (Neumann KU100)

[holoholo]

Pretty cool. Maybe I'm late to the party but on my feed saw a few of these vids now where they capture the audio with the Neumann KU100.




Pray I don't get Mitchell'd in this thread

 

[the swede]

Pray I don't get Mitchell'd in this thread

Nah… why would that be?

The Thomman video clearly shows why they use it.

Imho it just adds unnecessary information to that particular video, as in… I wouldn’t care how that room at Thomman sounds honestly.

 

[laxu]

Imho it just adds unnecessary information to that particular video, as in… I wouldn’t care how that room at Thomman sounds honestly.

The idea is to give you an idea what the people in the room are hearing, which is not an easy task considering where your ears are in relation to the output devices makes a big difference. The best way to watch those videos would be with headphones on so you basically get "if my ears were where this weird head looking stereo mic sits".

In both videos the various rigs all sounded good, but I'd still have a preference for the real SLO cab in the Studio Rats video, only because it sounds more like what I would expect to hear with a cab on the floor and my ears off axis and higher up.

For years, I used one of the Axe-Fx 2 + Atomic FR 1x12s (50W neutral tube amp + 12" woofer + small tweeter) and got nice results out of it. The tweeter had its own volume control. I always set it fairly low, like maybe on 3-5/10. That kept a lot of the harshness out of those highs.

It would be cool if someone could figure out a way to make proper speaker modeling that is not based on IRs where the effect of mic + placement + mic preamp will always be a factor even if you use the most neutral options for those. Otherwise it will always be replicating the PA experience, which is not necessarily as fun for the player as that real cab where it's flapping your trousers and you don't hear the highs as much as putting your head where the speaker sits.

 

[CakeEater]

I've been trying to replicate my Supro in the Helix for a hybrid rig, the closest I can get to how the amp sounds in the room is the Beyerdynamic M 160 at 2" on the cap-edge with a high-cut of about 5kHz. Overall I really do prefer the idea of as neutral a mic as possible to capture the Amp where I'm at experience, and I can see the benefit of profiling/capturing.

 

[jay mitchell]

I don’t think the reason for use of this mic is to add room characteristics, although it will.

Agreed. The reason is that this is the only way to get a valid A/B comparison on a video. Comparing a close-mic'ed physical amp to a direct feed from a modeler - the most common methodology - does not provide a valid comparison. Because the number of variables is greater than one, you won't get an apples-to-apples comparison that way.

A mic like this tries to come as close as possible to capturing a sound as the human ear would hear it…

Yup. The audio recording that results from this technique is binaural. In order to get the best results, you'd need to use a binaural playback system to listen. 'Phones represent the implementation that is most readily available to consumers.

which is very different then close micing 1cm3 of a spekaer. (with a different sound then the 1cm3 next to it)

I've been trying to get folks to recognize this fact for decades. Thanks for reinforcing it.

Close micing is nessecary for recordings to reduce spillover and roomsound, needed for sounds we love in pop music..but in a way it’s also an inferior method cause close micing never captures the full range of the source.

Bingo.

Classical recording for example, are more often then not done with very few mics for a whole orchestra, sometimes only a stereo pair.

A number of rock'n'roll, rockabilly, jazz, and country recordings in the 1950s were done with a single mic. A few of them turned out pretty good IMO.

 

[MirrorProfiles]

the only options I care about are:

- how it sounds mic'd up
- playing and hearing it myself in person

anything else sounds goofy and/or gives me nothing more useful than the above. If it doesn't mic up and record well, I don't really care how good I think it sounds in person (or any other context). Binaural is fun, and those heads can be cool to experiment with beyond just binaural uses. But binaural to me is basically just a novelty.

 

[jay mitchell]

O really? To me, besides it being common sense/logical…it’s so obvious when you record something close miced…

It's been obvious to me, too, for a really, really long time. My first experience with close-mic'ed recording was ca. 1973. My band was recording some demos in Doppler Studio in Atlanta. I was a complete newb, but it became instantly apparent that getting a good sound in the studio had very little to do with getting a good close-mic'ed sound.

Given that, it's nothing short of amazing the amount of pushback that I've gotten on gear forums when I've made the point. There are lots and lots folks who believe that close-mic'ing is the "traditional" (and, by extension, "correct") way to record guitar.

Recording/mixing drumkits & acoustic instruments was revealing Close miced snare…that’s “ploink”…not a snaredrum

Those tasks are immensely challenging, and the result never really sounds like the instrument. The reasons this is so are due to a combination of physical principles ("laws") and human ear/brain neurology.

 

[timbuck3]

HMMM

 

[timbuck3]

HMMM