• Register
  • Help
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 12

Topic: Gigapulse MIC modelling question

  1. #1

    Gigapulse MIC modelling question

    does the Gigapulse mic modelling option come close to Antares mic modeller plugin, or is it different (I ask cause I think about buying the latter)?



  2. #2
    Senior Member Bruce A. Richardson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 1999
    Dallas, Texas

    Re: Gigapulse MIC modelling question

    Hi Harry,

    Functionally, the very same process. It subtracts the source mic, and applies the target mic.

  3. #3

    Re: Gigapulse MIC modelling question

    thankx Bruce. But how versatile is it compared to the Antares plugin? And how does it compare soundwise?

  4. #4

    Re: Gigapulse MIC modelling question

    So does this mean I can record my vocals with an SP C1 and then make it sound like a U87? [img]images/icons/grin.gif[/img]

  5. #5

    Re: Gigapulse MIC modelling question


    Why would you want to degrade the sound of a C1 in that way? [img]images/icons/wink.gif[/img]

    -- Martin

  6. #6
    Senior Member Bruce A. Richardson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 1999
    Dallas, Texas

    Re: Gigapulse MIC modelling question

    The functionality of GigaPulse should be about equal to the Antares product from what I can tell just comparing features.

    In all seriousness about making one mic sound like another...

    I would think of it as a rough equivalent to \"artificial flavoring.\" What you won\'t get is anything you didn\'t \"capture\" initially. In theory a higher-quality \"capture\" can be modeled into a lower-quality mic more faithfully than the lower quality mic will \"model\" the high quality mic after processing. You can\'t convolve into being what was never there.

    But even at that, I don\'t know if you\'re going to get the same snare sound from, say a U87 modeled into a 57, as you\'re going to get from the 57. Some microphones have that unexplainable \"magic\" in certain settings. The 57 sounds good in some settings precisely because it\'s NOT all that sensitive, and it DOESN\'T capture the whole picture--just the aspects of the picture that we\'ve come to regard as good-sounding, or useful.

    Blah, blah, bla bla bla BLAH....you get the picture, anyway, I think. But that\'s the long and short of it. It\'s just another shaping tool, not necessarily literal, but useful for imprinting a known \"character.\"

  7. #7

    Re: Gigapulse MIC modelling question

    I think some of the differences may have to do with the the differences in polar patterns or what changes occur when you record off axis at a certain angle.

  8. #8

    Re: Gigapulse MIC modelling question

    Ditto what Bruce said. Very well put.
    Also, they can model each setting of the mics like the pickup pattern and rolloff etc..

    As to how accurate it is, they can take a recording that is done with a mic, then remove the mic with the model, then put that same \"virtual\" modeled mic back in and then toggle the bypass button and not hear any difference.


  9. #9

    Re: Gigapulse MIC modelling question

    The most meaningful description that I\'ve heard is that such things should be thought of as dynamic EQs.

  10. #10

    Re: Gigapulse MIC modelling question

    hmm a real postby me, what are you doing bruce trying to manipulate me into sying something serious?

    I thought Antares\' mic modeling was exactly that. Modeling. Done with fine frequency manipulation, possibly synthesis, and other \"modeling\" techniques (similar to the pod). And more superior, but similar to the COSM stuff Roland developed.

    Where as Gigapulse is a convolution technique, and not dynamic convolution at that. Meaning the impulses are just taht. Impulses taken at a specific volume, refore givine you just that one response curve of the mic.

    man software dynamic convolution...... Come on people, MAKE IT!!!!!!!!

    I can see gigapulse as incredibly superior to traditional convolution, and that Tascamesys could have a ton of stuff up their sleeve regarding dynamics and convolution... so I\'ll keep an open mind

    BTW, bruce, did you ever hear the demos from Roland showing of their mic modeling? They had some drum demos comparing real mics and the modelled ones. They were pretty impressive. Not perfect but still \"nice\". I ed the 421 model alot. In fact I made this super long 4 effect chain for guitar tone in the VS-1680 a while ago... too bad their amp models sucked in general...but chaining up COSM effects got a good sound if you weren\'t jsut a \"guitar band\" [img]images/icons/smile.gif[/img]

Go Back to forum

Tags for this Thread


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts