i used the HO U47 on a vocal recorded with a sm57, it actually worked out great, i really didn`t think it was gonna be good as i was only experimenting experimenting and being curious in nebula is definitely a good thing hehe
it would be nice to have more mics that are meant for drums though like special sub kick drums mics, akg d12, beta 52 and all the usual suspects
well luckily we have a 57 and 421 at least
many of the mics in the HO mic park can work great on overheads
i think its only kick drum mics i miss a little, but i`ll live
Beside its durability with high SPL, it could handle crazy amounts of EQ for shaping.
The Variable-D™ for minimal proximity effect allowed placement flexibility.
True cardioid with no off-axis coloration.
I was never much into the D-112 kick mic [maybe useful on Floor Tom]. It seemed more useful in a live situation for a fast setup. But in the studio, I wanted the ability to craft/taylor my kicks.
U-47 are spectacular mics ... even for kicks. The issue there, was, subjecting it to potential damage. [they weren't cheap even 35 years ago]. Still, one of my all-time favorites for Hammond B-3's to Guitar rigs ... and obvious top 5 for vocals.
RJHollins wrote:U-47 are spectacular mics ... even for kicks. The issue there, was, subjecting it to potential damage. [they weren't cheap even 35 years ago]. Still, one of my all-time favorites for Hammond B-3's to Guitar rigs ... and obvious top 5 for vocals.
Indeed. Henry's presets don't seem to be harmed no matter how much SPL I subject them to though.
OK, first, please ignore the fact that under my name it says "Internal developer", as I am not talking as such here. I also don't want this to appear as if I'm lambasting such libraries if these already exist (I remember seeing such somewhere, can't recall) or their usefulness (yes, I can imagine that they could still be an interesting creative tool). But...
This is a project I've been interested in doing for a while. And not just these mics. The problem is that it is VERY difficult to get it right and VERY expensive.
Any normal loudspeaker will introduce tons of colour (port and other resonances, phase distortion from x-over and what not, frequency colouration, harmonic distortion, non-harmonic distortions, etc.). As many problems will come from the room in which you sample the mics too.
So to do this right you need an anechoic chamber that can give you freefield conditions at least down to 60Hz (no room modes). Because it is very difficult to build such these are very expensive to hire. I've looked into one that has 20 meters of absorption on each wall!
In additional you will need a speaker to play the test tones that is invisible (that is probably even more difficult than the room part).
To avoid such issues a lot of mic measurements are actually done with special techniques that do not involve speakers, but these aren't really going to work when sampling with NAT...
From what I have researched, the answer is simple - if there is a good interest in this kind of samples, it can be done at high standard, but it will not be a cheap project. Hence the price will not be as low as for an EQ, a plate or similar devices.
Cheaper ways are an option too, but they will never give you the sound of the mics only... it will always be the sound of space + the speaker + the mic. Hence, too much unwanted colouration.