Is Some Audio Gear Magical? In this article William Wittman asks what makes exceptional equipment exceptional and whether it’s a distraction to be taken in by stories of unique examples of equipment which can’t be replicated?

It’s not uncommon to hear someone in audio refer to a particular piece of gear, or what it does to the sound in a given instance, as “magic”. Something ineffable, and perhaps indescribable in more mundane and earthly ways, but yet something the user unquestionably feels and desires.

There are for example some microphones, some guitars, some guitar amplifiers perhaps, that have that certain, what you can only call, “magic”. And even though every single parameter of this ‘magical’ microphone might be in fact measurable, that doesn’t necessarily make it easy to reproduce that ‘magic’ or to actually quantify what aspect it is that makes the ‘magic’.

For example, we know from evidence that it’s quite possible to make a really good sounding microphone that’s “kind of like” a Neumann U47, and we know it’s possible to make a cost effective microphone that’s “very close“ to a U47. But what remains elusive, at least in my experience, and impossible to re-create is that “magic” that some U47s have.

So really the question becomes: is that modeled U47, or modeled classic landmark control room or whatever else for that matter, an improvement for you? Is it indeed better than what you had before? These are valid considerations but it’s important to also note that they are not in many senses a replacement for the actual “magic.”

I have personally yet to hear that magic in a model or ‘clone’ or recreation.

I know some will disagree with me and say that anything we can hear can be measured and so can be re-created. Without getting into the weeds of such things as ancient violins and 60 year old guitars with wood and various other components that simply cannot be sourced these days (‘you can’t get the wood’, in other words, as the old British joke goes,) actual clones in the real meaning of the word are difficult to come by.

A cloned sheep is genetically identical to the parent sheep. That’s an actual clone. It’s not a “kind of like but improved” version of the original sheep. The fact that not a single so-called “clone” microphone employs exactly the same components as the original says something.  Because in many cases it is the small differences, or inaccuracies or even flaws, that lead to the “magic”, and those are the things least likely to be modeled or copied.

Should You Fix McCartney’s Favourite Microphone?

I’ve seen this firsthand. For example, one of the very best vocal microphones I’ve ever used was one purportedly kept on hand at a London studio for Paul McCartney‘s use, as it had been also a favourite to use on his voice on Beatles recordings 

This microphone was simply ungodly huge on vocals   One of the most incredible sounding vocal mics I’ve ever used. But, it also had an intermittent problem where it would just cut out or make strange noises from time to time. You would perhaps tap on the case lightly, or just wait out the problem, until it righted itself and returned to being beautiful, which invariably it did, but still it clearly was flaky. And yet, none of the recording engineers wanted to allow the technical biffs to fiddle with it and try to ‘fix it’ lest the magic be lost in the cure!

Now I am no electronics engineer but I would be suspicious at the very least that something so flaky, and yet perfect, could be effectively modeled. Would the model need to intermittently cut out? Was part of its “magic” something that also happened intermittently? Did it perhaps spike certain frequencies but not all the time? Distort just enough and perfectly for some input but not for others? Was something in its very instability adding to its “magic”?

Who knows?

In another example, I know one brilliant engineer who, having already recorded probably thousands of records, was in the middle of recording drums at an LA studio and walked into the office and insisted they sell him the particular snare microphone he was using down in Studio A. It was, in theory, just a bog standard SM57, one that he could buy anywhere and that every studio had multiples of, but his ears told him that this one was exceptional, and those ears,  I can tell you, should be trusted. Again, “magic”.

So the question naturally is would even the best model of a generic 57 have that “magic” he heard in that moment? Enough to say “I have to have that microphone?” One suspects ‘no’.

Just Because Something Is Great It Doesn’t Mean Everything Else Is Bad

Having said all that, we work routinely with many components in an overall recording system that are not, and perhaps one could argue don’t need to be, “magic”. Microphone preamps, headphones, guitar amplifiers, reverbs and delays, and perhaps most outboard equipment, only need to do the job you require in the moment. They don’t all need to add ‘magic’, and if a particular box, for example a Fairchild 660, does add some magic that’s a bonus not a requirement. It’s a question of expectations.

The lesson from my point of view is that “magic” occurs sometimes and it’s wise to identify it and benefit from it when you stumble upon it. By all means, use that magic mic when you can. Make the most of it. But at the same time, don’t fool yourself into believing that magic is easily recreated or emulated or purchased for a fraction of the price or modeled in software with a pretty picture of the supposedly magical thingy.

Ultimately it’s up to us to extract whatever magic we can from the tools at hand, not to search for Excalibur, or worse for an inadequate copy that says Xcaliber in shiny letters.

Be the wizard, don’t worry about the wand.