Slate emulations always sound like they have the extended high frequencies of a cheaper microphone. But I do like that it's cardiod only and that you don't need to record two tracks like the Sphere.
It is pretty close from what I hear! I have an 87 Ai and it’s great for certain sources but definitely not a 1 size fits all microphone. I do love the rich low mids it captures. I agree that the Slate is a better choice if you’re learning and starting to record yourself and maybe a small group of clients. However, I do think it’s beneficial to own the real deal if you want to charge more money and plan to work with more professional clients.
It's funny, the reason I have an 87 is because people kept requesting it. I got one just so I could show that I have it, so when I recommend a different mic it's not because I don't have one LOL
in the mix only a super trained ear could tell the difference. The consumer wont even know and for the price I'd rock with the slate. I own and use the Neumann Tlm67 but im def getting the slate because u get way more bang for the buck. i may even sell my Neumann
Another important point to make about off axis frequency response, that I think was not talked about, is the quality of bleed coming into the microphone. While this might not be terribly important for overdubs or single musician recordings, it is a huge factor for mic choice in for example classical and jazz recordings or any genre really, where more instruments are captured in the same room next to each other. I agree, that the VMS gets pretty close to the U87 on your voice but I’d be very interested to hear them in an off axis comparison for that reason. I’d even be interested to hear a spaced pair of overheads comparison, to see how the ~90 degrees off axis response in the higher frequencies is. I assume the Neumann would noticeably pull ahead on these tasks.
yeah that would be interesting. At the end of the day technology like this is nearly always a trade off, it's just a shame that it isn't really acknowledged because in some applications this would absolutely kill. Voice-over for example would be insane. Assuming you have a super dead environment you could probably match any dialogue recorded in any other studio.
I reckon the off-axis response will probably be notably different - though better or worse I couldn't guess. But that's a good point (I actually mention this in Monday's video which I just recorded) - off axis response is important when considering how much bleed one wants to eliminate, OR, if capturing a source that has a large "composite" sound like drum kit overheads, upright bass, or even an acoustic guitar.
Thanks for sharing this. I was considering the U87 but it doesn't seem to have nailed the low mid saturation. The top end polished lift you mention is my problem with the slate mic. It exists on all the ML1 models and it's small, but does add this "sheen" that's hard to get out. It would be great if Slate could add more saturation in that area and eq out that sheen!
I think there's better alternatives to the 87 overall. TLM170 for something cleaner, M147 for something with a bit more weight, Gefell 92.1s for something a little glowier (not technically Neumann but like a sister company) - and that's just in the Neumann family.
@@WeissAdvice Agreed, but I was hoping I could add the U87 flavor with this emulation to my existing Slate ML-1. Sometimes I want that sound for voices or foley.
I think the obvious thing missing from this shootout is the intensity slider on the Slate VMS that might warm it up even further. I noticed that it was left at minimum (100%).
Hi Cameron, while I should have mentioned it I found that the intensity knob did not help match the VMS to the 87. It bolstered up the low end, which could conceivably be useful though.
Hey Matt, If I do a quick A/B knowing that you are switching Mic and focusing on it, I would say that the Slate is a little thinner and digital sounding VS the U87 that as more meat and depth, That said I DID NOT notice before you said it Have you tried the Townsend Lab L22 ? I use mine with my UAD Apollo X8 with some great result
If you know exactly what to listen for you can notice it. But it's close enough that I can't tell where all the punch points are in the first half 100%. I've never tried the Townsend, but I've heard good things.
Run the Slate microphone through The Golden Age Pre 73 MKIII and crank The gain to about 50-55 and reduce the output the coloration is fantastic, and i bet it sounds amazing. My budget Recommendation.
The difference between the actual microphone and emulation is fairly subtle here on spoken word, but when recording sung vocals or instruments it becomes even less subtle and more apparent. It's particularly apparent on warmer sources. I've shot out the ML1 on my channel against variously priced clones and such on my channel. The ML1 sounds fine, but no where near as good as the actual microphones IMHO.
Great comparison video. Those differences are super minuscule, They are barely noticeable and definitely wouldn't matter in a song with all the music and emotion. In fact, I didn't detect any notable difference even after you revealed you were switching the audio between the two mics. IMO, the subtle differences are what you would normally hear between a pair of Neumann mics or any other pair of the same brand mics. I don't think it's worth spending 3 or 4 times the price (sometimes 10 or 20 times with C800 and 251 emulations) for those tiny differences. My only challenge with the Slate VMS is too much choice. I sometimes spend over an hour deciding which emulation I want to use. That is so friggin time-consuming. When I only had a U87 and a Telefunken, I would lock in a mic and keep moving forward. Big ups to Slate for developing the VMS, but sometimes, less choice is better.
I agree - there is a bit of information overload in the VMS. I typically only find myself using a couple of the emulations; primarily the Blackbird 251.
To me, they sound very different. Even if you tone match the vowels, there is still a difference in consonants and sighs. But for $500, this is certainly a great result
Matt if you only knew how many times I was going to buy the Slate mic then backed out at the last second. Bottom line is I really want a 47 or a clone of it but it's out of the budget. I've heard people rave about the 47 emulation on the Slate but I'm just not sold on a $500 mic being as good or close to as a $10K mic, I'd love to know your opinion on that.
with you mentioning that a 47 or clone is out of your budget range makes me actually think that you would probably be very happy with the ML1. I have a medium mic locker (probably about 50 mics total) with several clone style and hand built or modded mics, along with reputable ones in the 2K-4K range...and the Slate ML1 holds up quite well in the bunch...for me though the real surprise for the price was actually the ML2...even on vocals. Blew me away even more than the ML1...we're living in some pretty amazing times 🙂
The 47 is probably the emulation I use the least, never done a direct comparison. I use the Blackbird 251 emulation a lot, that thing is shockingly good. TBH - I think generally u47s are a little (just a little) overrated. They all sound different and you gotta find a really really good one to get the magic. Best clone I've ever heard is Circle Audio EVO47. That mic is crazy good. But they're not cheap, just cheap relative to a Telefunken/Neumann.
@@WeissAdvice I've used two 47 clones. Warm Audio and Flea and they both sounded great for my voice. I have a 251 clone but that mic is not suited to my voice. It's a little trebly for me and usually needs a lot of de-essing for me. Sounds amazing on others though. I'm going to look into that Erikson model. Thanks Matt!
@@kelvinfunkner I think I'm just going to wait and save up for what I really want. The Flea model is only 4 to 5K and that's doable. It sounds amazing and I'd rather not just settle.
Hi Matt, this is an interesting observation, I find myself thinking all the time these days though that the real 87, or real 47 or whatever is superior and ultimately no matter how close - wins by some distance. Its one thing to say it sounds really, really close and another to say that it out performs. One of the problems of digital emulations is by definitition they are trying to be like something else, something with an established reputation born from how it has inspired or defined some sort of sonic frontier across decades. When I see demo videos of say a plugin pultec vs a hardware pultec, much satisfaction seems to be drawn from getting it to sound indistinguishable from the hardware. But that does miss the point somewhat. When we use a real Pultec EQ, or a Neumann 87, we are not trying to match it to anything, we are deploying the hardware to get an artistic result. A U87 doesn't exist just because it sounds like a U87, it exists because it is superb at capturing sources to a high standard and with a finesse that engineers and producers have celebrated and committed to records. Or to perhaps put another way, would we ever use a real pultec to try and sound as good as an EQ curve on a digital Pultec? I think I summarised my feelings on this some time ago, the original equipment in all of these matters is not shackled by the same constraints as emulations, the hardware does not need to prove anything - using the hardware results in fast, pleasing and dependable results that we don't waste too much time thinking about, the emulations are continually compromised by the fact that they need to prove themselves, before they can be used creatively and one is always left feeling that the original hardware would be better if it was an option.
By the same token it's really hard to make a U87 sound like a 251 - so in that sense the Slate absolutely "out performs" both mics. But in a typical sense, that's true - for all the reasons mentioned the Slate will not out perform the mic it is emulating because it won't emulate things like switchable polar patters, off axis response, etc. That said, there are clones and emulations that absolutely do outperform their predecessors. I have a Lucas 3-band Equaliser which is modeled off of the Pultec EQP-1a, and to my ear not only sounds better, but has a mid band making it much more useful. In the case of a U87, I personally think it's a bit of an overrated mic. I've had mine for years and you've never seen me record my VO on it until this very video. Not a bad mic by any means, it's a solid mic with a character sound. In terms of the hype around it though - I'd say it has a fair amount of prove.
thx for the good vid. i'm surprised almost no one ever talks about transient response... it's always eq & saturation. the 87 for ex sounds almost compressed compared to say a 47FET. Also the sort of "crispy" detail you get in a high end mic; no one talks about that... definitely lacking here to my ears (w/ the Slate). Still a good tool though.
