Slate VCC + VTM

[mikeyman]

sounds good you can hear a difference but does it sound like a tape machine?

[LonDonsen]

Thanks Aaron, very nice presentation of the differences here. I say that because I don't like plugins or tools where you need a kind of an inverted ear-microscope to be able to hear a difference.

[void1985]

Sounds great! I've had VCC and FG-X for a while now and love them. First thing I need is Trigger, then I'll get the VTM. It's obvious what VCC and VTM did to your mixes here. The guitars have a more rounded mid and the attack of the strings sound a bit punchier and fuller. The snare hits have a bit more punch and the entire track just feels more alive and is in its entirety more convincing.

Awesome!

[cefshah]

I'm impressed!! The 'flavors' or 'spices' introduced by VCC and/or VTM, are very useful musically.

It helps a lot, to mitigate what the pure digital process does to the sound of recorded music.

Good stuff!!

[LonDonsen]

Ok, at first I was impressed by the result above of the VCC + VTM version of the mix. But then I asked myself "how often have I been fooled by simple loudness differences"? Too many times!!! I learned that if two tracks are identical but one of them is only 1dB louder, the louder track will sound better, because of our hearing, psyche, the Fletcher Munson curve or whatever! And then there is also a peak level and the RMS level. VCC and VTM work with density or in other words, they increase the RMS level. But don't we have dozens of tools like limiters etc. to increase the RMS level of our mixes? We have, so I just ran the unprocessed mix thru Decapitator, BX digital V2 and Fabfilter Pro-L with tiny adjustments. Listen to the files below and ask yourself if you really need more new tools or toys.

Both MP3s are 320 kbps:

[jrhager84]

If you have fgx, just turn on the dynamic adjustment button. Then they'll be the same volume...

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I777 using Gearslutz App

[mikeyman]

i can hear it a little bit on your tune .

[Kaylub Burke]

Thought I would add a bit more of a stripped down recording to the table here.

I have *really* been getting into taking a "purists" perspective with DAWs lately.
The slate team has been putting a really big smile on my face to this end.

This is a recording of a cheap little $200 baby acoustic guitar, so it gives you an idea as to how much work the "signal chain" is doing to help the sound.

Tracking was:
1)AKGC460 small pencil condenser over the performer's right shoulder (pointed down at neck) on a LaChapell 583e preamp. [6 inches away]
2)Audio Technica 4033 wide diaphragm condenser 20 inches away from pencil microphone and pointed at the body of the guitar (between bridge and end of the body) on a Shadow Hills mono gamma preamp set to discrete.
3)Home made ribbon microphone about 3 inches away from the saddle of the guitar, phase reversed on a Blue Robbie preamp.

These preamps were all received by the line-ins of Focusrite Liquid Saffire 56 unit.
Levels in the DAW were:
Neck: +2db
Ribbon(phase reversed): -2db
Room/3to1: -5db

Cubase 6.5 was used on the PC DAW.

The "before" track is simply these microphones/levels going into the DAW and then exported to 24bit wav file.

The "After" track has been treated by Slate Digital Virtual Console Collection and Virtual Tape Machine a tiny bit of parallel Cytomic compression was used on the group channel.
VCC was set to "Trident", with no added drive or gain. (One channel instance on every microphone, and one mixbuss on my master fader).
VTM was set to 2 inch tape / 30 ips with a "high bias" on all the individual microphone channels,
and then 1/2 inch tape / 15 ips with no bias on the master channel.

I love the tone we're getting, and we're tracking this in buddy's living room on a cheap ass guitar. haha.
(If anyone would like to hear the track stripped down to just VCC, just VTM or just Cytomic, let me know. I'll take the time to make another post).

Hope it helps sort some things out for you guys who are still wondering about this software. Color is totally a subjective thing, but I'd like to hear what you all think. I for one, am stoked that I can carry this rig around and get great "hardware tones" anywhere. I have officially sold my soul to Slate Digital. haha.

Files are all 24bit, 48khz stereo:

Before (Just microphones & preamps):
http://www.eardrumvalley.com/gearslu...tar-Before.wav

After (Treated with VCC, VTM & Cytomic "The Glue"):
http://www.eardrumvalley.com/gearslu...VCCCytomic.wav

[Kaylub Burke]

We recorded drums and doubled up guitars for the track I was touting later.
It's got the VTM + VCC treament going on, no more Cytomic at all.

If anyone's interested to hear how it's responding to the guitars with some drum transients on there, check this out.
(I MP3ed for you guys, for faster download times.)

http://www.eardrumvalley.com/gearslu...AndGuitars.mp3

[Aaron Miller]

Originally Posted by LonDonsen

But don't we have dozens of tools like limiters etc. to increase the RMS level of our mixes? We have, so I just ran the unprocessed mix thru Decapitator, BX digital V2 and Fabfilter Pro-L with tiny adjustments. Listen to the files below and ask yourself if you really need more new tools or toys.

So you're questioning the need for more plugins and your reasoning is that we can use three plugins (and go out and buy them if we don't already have them) to *attempt* to mimic what VTM, a single plugin, can do? Doesn't make sense to me.

Besides, VTM is doing way more than boosting RMS. If you get the same results with other plugins that's great.

[Kaylub Burke]

bump.
VTM does something much different than all 3 of those plugins combined.

[Roman Rowlands]

Originally Posted by LonDonsen

Ok, at first I was impressed by the result above of the VCC + VTM version of the mix. But then I asked myself "how often have I been fooled by simple loudness differences"? Too many times!!! I learned that if two tracks are identical but one of them is only 1dB louder, the louder track will sound better, because of our hearing, psyche, the Fletcher Munson curve or whatever! And then there is also a peak level and the RMS level. VCC and VTM work with density or in other words, they increase the RMS level. But don't we have dozens of tools like limiters etc. to increase the RMS level of our mixes? We have, so I just ran the unprocessed mix thru Decapitator, BX digital V2 and Fabfilter Pro-L with tiny adjustments. Listen to the files below and ask yourself if you really need more new tools or toys.

Both MP3s are 320 kbps:

I listened on my phone via standard ipod phones. I did prefer the vibe of VTM mix, it was smoother rounder less high end. For instance crash cymbal, guitars, snare. Also VTM sounds more "glued" together, sorry for cliché terminology. On the other hand non-vtm mix seems to be more punchy, perhaps due to less overall peak compression. Again, this was heard on basic consumer gear, just like most will get to hear it.

It's tricky, if you were to catefully filter high end on your non-vtm mix and compress a tad more, then maybe the difference would not be so obvious. But if 1 plugin gives you the mojo that 3 plugins get you or if you already own the other tools that will get you similar effect then it's a very personal decision. FWIW so many mixes lack filtering to create distance between instruments that I see how so many ppl instantly decide to get it. It's a great plugin IMHO, but decision to spend money or not on it has to be non impulsive one. Perhaps try to do another mix low passing higher frequenciea on some tracks and a tad more compression and see the difference then. Thanks for posting your examples.

[Kaylub Burke]

You want more punch on your VTM prints?
Throw down FG-X on your mastering line, push the lowend punch and garnish some dynamics back.

Boo-ya.
You guys do realize they've made a whole suite of plugins for your chain, right?

[mikeyman]

how are you guys gain staging your VCC.Seems like i have to keep the volume down on the input and just use the drive.My master bus is to hot

[erol]

Hi,

I recently bought VCC and VTM but can not figure out the best way to use them. I use Cubase 6.5 on OSX and mainly produce trance/hardtrance and techno.

Yesterday I made 6 groupchannels (percussion, synths, fx etc) and placed VCC as first insert with the Neve console (Brit N Discrete), input 0db and drive +3db with the "group" ON. I heard a little difference but no "wow" factor. I also use the VTM on my synth groupchannel. This did made a difference, the synth sounded more present and clearer.

Any tips how to use both plugins? Maybe it is better to use the VCC channel on ALL channels instead of the bus plugin on the groupchannels? Also, I did not used the VCC on my master.

Hope you guys can help me out a bit to get a better result using both plugins. Thank you!

[northamrec]

Originally Posted by mikeyman

how are you guys gain staging your VCC.Seems like i have to keep the volume down on the input and just use the drive.My master bus is to hot

I usually don't touch the input. You can always go into the settings and change the calibration to drive the emulation harder. One thing I've done here and there (although it's kind of clunky) is to insert a trim plugin, if you're using PT, to add 6db of gain before VCC, then insert another trim plugin after VCC and subtract 6db of gain. Again, it's kind of an odd thing to do, but it seems like it could be useful.

[mikeyman]

i was messing w/VCC last night.There are a few different ways to use it and that is cool.We have to remember it is a subtle effect.We are not adding a compressor we are just running thru a console.I think some folks may not be able to hear much because they have lost their hearing do to loud music.

[Aaron Miller]

Originally Posted by erol

Hi,

I recently bought VCC and VTM but can not figure out the best way to use them. I use Cubase 6.5 on OSX and mainly produce trance/hardtrance and techno.

Yesterday I made 6 groupchannels (percussion, synths, fx etc) and placed VCC as first insert with the Neve console (Brit N Discrete), input 0db and drive +3db with the "group" ON. I heard a little difference but no "wow" factor. I also use the VTM on my synth groupchannel. This did made a difference, the synth sounded more present and clearer.

Any tips how to use both plugins? Maybe it is better to use the VCC channel on ALL channels instead of the bus plugin on the groupchannels? Also, I did not used the VCC on my master.

Hope you guys can help me out a bit to get a better result using both plugins. Thank you!

Remember the effect can be subtle if used sparingly. Using it on all channels plus masterbus should not be subtle. Or, turn up the input. Here's what I'm doing for vocals on a track right now:

SM7B --> 1176 Plugin --> Pultec Plugin --> Slate Tape (adjust input so peaks are at 0db) --> VCC.

This really warms up the vocals. You can hear sheen in the highs and thickening in the low mids. Not subtle. I suggest EQing and compressing in context (i.e., Slate plugins switched on). I wouldn't use so much color with some mics. The SM7B loves it though.

[Sotsirc]

Anyone using VCC + VTM + VCC on individual tracks?
Theory being record on console to multitrack and mix on a (different?) console.
I like the idea if having the "tracking" VCC set to SSL and the mixing console set to Neve for example. Anyone using it like this?

[mikeyman]

Originally Posted by Sotsirc

Anyone using VCC + VTM + VCC on individual tracks?
Theory being record on console to multitrack and mix on a (different?) console.
I like the idea if having the "tracking" VCC set to SSL and the mixing console set to Neve for example. Anyone using it like this?

tracking console? just put the vcc on all your playback tracks and the master bus.You can mix consoles for different groups.I don't run the vcc on my effect aux but thats just me

[Audio X]

Originally Posted by Aaron Miller

Hi Folks,

Just been enjoying the new Virtual Tape Machine and of course VCC which I've been using for a while. Here are some rough mixes with VCC or VCC + VTM on all individual tracks and the master bus.

Keep in mind the mixes actually slightly favor the dry version or the one with VCC only. When I made the rough mix, I think I had VCC on a couple tracks and master bus only. I wet back and added VCC to all channels and bounced to disk. Then I went back and added VTM to all channels and bounced to disk. I didn't bother changing settings on other plugins. In reality, I would be mixing into these Slate plugins as that would effect my decisions on EQ, compression, etc. So again, this was kind of a heavy-handed approach but I just wanted to hear what these plugins can do.

As far as Slate settings, I kept unity gain on the VCC plugins. I used mostly Neve and API for the console and whatever tape settings sounding best right off the bat.

There's over a 2.5 dB difference in level between the "No Processing" sample and the vcc + vtm sample. There is also a 1 dB difference in level between "No Processing" and vcc.

To judge proper you'd have to level match them. It seems like there is gain applied by running through the virtual plug's.

Can you tell which one sounds better from the photo?

[mikeyman]

kinda been re-thinking this.Why would you put your eq after the VCC.I know thats the normal way but i don't want to run the the unprocessed signal thru it.In other words i don't want the VCC reacting to a signal that is not my final signal..???

[jrhager84]

Originally Posted by mikeyman

kinda been re-thinking this.Why would you put your eq after the VCC.I know thats the normal way but i don't want to run the the unprocessed signal thru it.In other words i don't want the VCC reacting to a signal that is not my final signal..???

Then put it before...

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I777 using Gearslutz App

[Scott Whigham]

Originally Posted by Audio X

There's over a 2.5 dB difference in level between the "No Processing" sample and the vcc + vtm sample. There is also a 1 dB difference in level between "No Processing" and vcc.

To judge proper you'd have to level match them. It seems like there is gain applied by running through the virtual plug's.

Can you tell which one sounds better from the photo?

Good point - I just know that, if the volume isn't level matched, I like the louder one damn near every time haha

Originally Posted by Aaron Miller

SM7B --> 1176 Plugin --> Pultec Plugin --> Slate Tape (adjust input so peaks are at 0db) --> VCC.

This isn't that different from what I do but I put VCC at the beginning. After all, in a real console, the mic would be going through the console and then out to the compressor and everything would be printed to tape last. Have you tried putting the VCC at the beginning? And goose the input up a bit and play with that too - it's fun to hear more meat (which is what, to my ears, that can add to the right source).

[mikeyman]

yes i have tried the Vcc before everything .I just don't want to push the VCC with to much bottom end.I like to roll off bottom end on alot of tracks

[jordanvoth]

Originally Posted by Sotsirc

Anyone using VCC + VTM + VCC on individual tracks?
Theory being record on console to multitrack and mix on a (different?) console.
I like the idea if having the "tracking" VCC set to SSL and the mixing console set to Neve for example. Anyone using it like this?

This is what I'd be doing, tracking with the neve plugin and the tape on and then possible slapping the SSL/API on and tape on the busses. It's a nice way to work quicker.

[Kaylub Burke]

Tracked this song with LaChapell/Shadow Hills/Blue/Telefunken remake/Focusrite preamps and some higher end vintage microphones into Liquid Saffire 56 line ins for conversion.

Mixed with Slate Digital plugins (and I must confess, a bit of voxengo) in Cubase 6.5 but that's it! VCC, VTM, FG-X & SSD4 were the main plugs used in this production.

What do you guys think?
http://eardrumvalley.com/TTBK/Second...ter_Intro).mp3

[Aaron Miller]

Originally Posted by Scott Whigham

Good point - I just know that, if the volume isn't level matched, I like the louder one damn near every time haha

This isn't that different from what I do but I put VCC at the beginning. After all, in a real console, the mic would be going through the console and then out to the compressor and everything would be printed to tape last. Have you tried putting the VCC at the beginning? And goose the input up a bit and play with that too - it's fun to hear more meat (which is what, to my ears, that can add to the right source).

Yeah, I use that sometimes too. Usually I EQ first to cut frequencies I don't want hitting the comp and then compress so I can audition different Slate settings without messing with the signal hitting the comp, but whatever works.

I've been loving driving the vocals pretty hard on the tape plugin with the G9 tape setting! Hitting it with lots of HF content is cool because it smooths it out while adding harmonics. None of my other saturation or comp plugins do this as well.

[PapaSon]

Originally Posted by Aaron Miller

Hi Folks,

Just been enjoying the new Virtual Tape Machine and of course VCC which I've been using for a while. Here are some rough mixes with VCC or VCC + VTM on all individual tracks and the master bus.

Keep in mind the mixes actually slightly favor the dry version or the one with VCC only. When I made the rough mix, I think I had VCC on a couple tracks and master bus only. I wet back and added VCC to all channels and bounced to disk. Then I went back and added VTM to all channels and bounced to disk. I didn't bother changing settings on other plugins. In reality, I would be mixing into these Slate plugins as that would effect my decisions on EQ, compression, etc. So again, this was kind of a heavy-handed approach but I just wanted to hear what these plugins can do.

As far as Slate settings, I kept unity gain on the VCC plugins. I used mostly Neve and API for the console and whatever tape settings sounding best right off the bat.


No extra processing:



VCC on all tracks and master bus:



VCC + VTM on all tracks and master bus:

Am I the only one who likes unprocessed better?
I think the VCC and VTM examples sounded overly processed, and less harmonically rich (and yes, a bit louder). But that's me.