Using Match EQ for the betterment of mankind. Can you help?

[xs4is]

Hello fellow Logic nuts. Hope your night (or day) is going well.

 

As you may or may not know, I am a frequent contributor on the Apple Logic Discussion Forum. Tonight I read a thread about a guy (midnightsun) asking if someone could help him figure out how to use Match EQ to take the characteristics of one mic and add them to another.

 

I think this is a phenomenal idea if it can be done. In fact, I think that we should start a database for Match EQ settings, i.e., Neumann TLM 103 with male vox, or Blue Babybottle with female vox. I realize that the characteristics of each individuals voice are going to be different, but an approximation can be better then nothing, right?

 

Can this be done (or maybe I don't understand Match EQ well enough yet)? If so, will David allow us to add it to his database? I sure hope so. My mic cabinet consists of an original RODE NT1, four Shure SM57s, a couple of sets of MXLs (not so good), and some other less favorable mics (my favorite "bad" mic is an old set of headphones), but I would love to take my RODE and get it to sound more like a Neumann. That would be sweeeeeeet.

 

Thank you for your time and feel free to tell me if I'm crazy.

X

[JayGee]

Hey X,

 

Glad to see you over here as well...

 

I think what you're looking to accomplish could _possibly_ be done, but the real issue is twofold. First, the sound source would have to be consistent for anyone wishing to contribute to the collection. That is, they would need to SAME male vox to contribute to the recording. Of course, that is if you want these MatchEQ settings to be consistent.

 

The other issue is by what means they would be "played back" into the microphone. The environment would be key to getting a true capture of the sound source.

 

Let me know if _I'm_ off the mark.

 

Thanks,

JG

[xs4is]

I think you may be right JayGee. Maybe if we were to divide the categories of the sound of the singers even more like, "Male, Baritone, Nuemann TLM" to narrow down the differences even more.

 

In that thread that I referenced in my original post here, another forum member (noeqplease) said that he uses space designer to accomplish this. Hmmm. That seems like a good idea too.

 

Anyone have any experience with this?

 

X

[vpunk]

Why not just use pink noise?

[gsilbers]

wouldnt it depend a lot more on the original mic you are using. if i use sm57 mic and apply the match EQ setting for a neumman u47 then it going to be very different if i then use a 414.

 

i think thats what antares mic modeler did no?

[JayGee]

What's being suggested isn't impossible, just difficult to classify and quantify. There would have to be pretty strict guidlines - so much so that it would make the Antares product look a lot more attractive. (Ex: what mic pre's are usuable, etc.)

 

Anyways.... If you lay the ground rules, it's worth a shot. I'm game.

 

JG

[davidschade]

I've done this with some of my mics, TLM103, and then bunch of mics

like Audio-Technica, Studio Projects, Apex. I use pink noise and Mackie

monitors and put all the mics close together. This way I can normalize any

of the mics to have the same frequency response as any of the other mics.

The key here is that all the mic responses are measured with exactly the same

noise source. It works with Match EQ. But if you use a different set

of speakers in a different room then your results are not comparable outside

of that set of room/speakers.

 

In other words, easy to do with all the mics in one's own collection. Difficult

or impossible (I'm not sure which) with other people's mics.

 

David

[xs4is]

It works with Match EQ. But if you use a different set

of speakers in a different room then your results are not comparable outside

of that set of room/speakers.

 

In other words, easy to do with all the mics in one's own collection. Difficult

or impossible (I'm not sure which) with other people's mics.

 

Well that just makes sense. Pink noise...Hmmmm. Clever.

 

I wonder if someone were to post the audio files of (for example) a Neumann "whatever" mic recording pink noise in a nice room (as flat as possible) if that would be better suited to the task at hand. What do y'all think?

 

That would help out those up-and-comers (like myself) greatly as even renting a Neumann can be out of our budget.

 

Thanks to all that have read and especially those that have replied.

X

Edited June 12, 2007 by xs4is

[davidschade]

I don't know if there exists such a thing as a flat room response. I measured my room response using tone generation and some measuring software. There is a

real question of how flat the input sound source is. But nevertheless, the lack

of flatness in the output is astonishing. Standing waves from 50 Hz to several

hundred Hz that give variations with position of more than 15 dB, believe it or

not, at a given frequency (at the low Hz end).

 

I've treated the room with a lot (A LOT) of absorbing material (foam panels) that helps with500 Hz and up. I'm going to try heavy fiberglass (6") to try to improve the bass end. And my room is moderate sized (500 square feet) and not shaped like

a cube. Smaller and more cube-like rooms will be worse.

 

My point is that the difference room-to-room is not a minor consideration. It will

overwhelm the actual difference between the mics.

 

This last fact demonstrates that you should put a thousand $ into improving the acoustics of your room before you even think about putting a thousand $ into a

microphone. BUT this only holds if you do significant live recording of several instruments.