Does anyone dislike VCC and VTM?
#61
27th December 2012
Old 27th December 2012
  #61
Gear maniac
 
Joined: Nov 2005
Location: Upstate New York
Posts: 187

My iLok2 failed on Cristmas Day.
jcoutu1
Thread Starter
#62
27th December 2012
Old 27th December 2012
  #62
Gear addict
 
jcoutu1's Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2011
Location: Uxbridge, MA
Posts: 478
My Studio

Thread Starter
Quote:
Originally Posted by bugs View Post
My iLok2 failed on Cristmas Day.
Merry Christmas eh?

Sent from my slutzapp.
#63
27th December 2012
Old 27th December 2012
  #63
Lives for gear
 
edva's Avatar
 
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 3,753

Well, nobody really likes iLok, but that's not Slate's fault. I like and use VCC and VTM. With VCC, I generally audition it on a per track basis, and if it wins, it's in. I like the GUI, which is a big issue I have with Nebula, which can be a great sounding plug, but the user experience for me is not fun or intuitive like it is with Slate.
On the master bus, it is very rare that I don't use VTM, and FG-X for that matter. In an A/B with and without, 98% of the time I like it better with VTM. I find it plenty tweakable, without being ridiculously arcane. Very nice plug, IMHO. I try to always mix at 96k, even though most projects come in at 44.1 or 48, I upsample them with Izotope before beginning to work on them, that might be another reason the plugs sound good to me.
With regard to price, I'm not against anybody getting a good deal, but it is a little offensive to prior customers to see prices slashed later. Seems like the sooner you buy it, the lower the price should be. The way it is done now seems to want to encourage people not to buy it when it comes out, and instead rewards those who just wait for the inevitable price slashing. Just a minor quibble, I know business is business and all that, still very nice products, and I'm glad to have them.
#64
27th December 2012
Old 27th December 2012
  #64
Moderator
 
psycho_monkey's Avatar
 
Joined: Jun 2006
Location: Sydney via London

Quote:
Originally Posted by ksandvik View Post
iLok is a big minus for those products..
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcoutu1 View Post
I agree. It basically raises the price by $50 for me.
As a point of perspective, for anyone who does own an iLok, using challenge/response adds to the cost for us.

Swings and roundabouts...
jcoutu1
Thread Starter
#65
27th December 2012
Old 27th December 2012
  #65
Gear addict
 
jcoutu1's Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2011
Location: Uxbridge, MA
Posts: 478
My Studio

Thread Starter
It's not ilok that is the problem. I have one. It's the fact that I need to get a second one to use these plugs.

Sent from my slutzapp.
#66
27th December 2012
Old 27th December 2012
  #66
Gear interested
 
che47audio's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 14

Quote:
Originally Posted by Leevi View Post
Virtual Console Collection and Virtual Tape Machines by Slate Digital.
Oh,
Cheers. Bit out of touch you see.

Thanks
#67
27th December 2012
Old 27th December 2012
  #67
Gear nut
 
Joined: Jun 2012
Posts: 97

Quote:
Originally Posted by popmann View Post
I would ask of those who don't like VCC...or "own it but don't use it"...you're not actually running it at 44/48khz withut oversampling, now are you?

I recently hit a CPU wall on a mix, and I know the way to cut the CPU useage in half is turn off the oversampling (temporarily)...I did, and sat in dismay at what the mix sounded like without it. I couldn't freeze other things fast enough to get it turned back on.

Anyway, he's said that to do over he wouldn't include the ability to NOT use oversampling...which is why there's no ability in VTM (it IS upsampling whether you want it to or not)...just, you know--tip. Turn it on. Kiss your CPU goodbye.
It's certainly something to experiment with, however, Slate did make a post here saying that the "no oversampling" setting sounded closest to the desks they modeled.
Eat
#68
27th December 2012
Old 27th December 2012
  #68
Eat
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 844

Of course I should RTFM, but since I'm not at my machine.... this oversampling function in the pref panel. It seems there's 4 options with regards to real time listening and rendering quality.
IIRC, its 'none', 2x, 4x and 8 or 16x oversampling

I assume that perhaps I should be more or less listening, ie mixing, with a better than 'no oversampling'... for example, 2x or 4x oversamp. Which of course eats more cpu. Or is there much of a noticeable difference... I mean you obviously would like to hear the same thing while mixing as in final render
#69
27th December 2012
Old 27th December 2012
  #69
Lives for gear
 
popmann's Avatar
 
Joined: Nov 2004
Location: Nashville
Posts: 4,690

No, he very clearly posted that below 96k they were NOT accurate, and he wished in retrospect that he hadn't allowed users to turn the overampling off. But, that he wasn't going to change it now, because the are people who reported they liked the sound with it off.

If you turn on 2x and can't hear the difference, you either need better monitoring, or need to not be mixing audio. Beyond that? Ehh...like recording at higher than 88/96, I can't reliably tell the difference for better or worse.

What you should NOT ever do is have the offline off sampling different than you're monitoring. It will sound different, and I don't know about you, but I prefer my mix to sound like what I'm hearing while I mix. I actually bounce in real time, so...no difference for me.
#70
28th December 2012
Old 28th December 2012
  #70
Moderator
 
psycho_monkey's Avatar
 
Joined: Jun 2006
Location: Sydney via London

Quote:
Originally Posted by popmann View Post
If you turn on 2x and can't hear the difference, you either need better monitoring, or need to not be mixing audio.
Having just read your post, I went and had a play with this.

I couldn't even get a reasonably busy mix to play back on 4x over sampling, so that's a moot point with me.

2x oversampling? My monitoring at home is awful at the moment - I mainly edit here, and I'm on HD600s most of the time. A recent move and uncertainty as to my future route means I'm not doing treatment etc just yet.

I'm not too proud to say I didn't hear a significant difference with the oversampling on - certainly not a "night and day". I hear a difference actually using VCC versus not using it, and so far I've universally preferred using it to not having it on (although you have to watch out for the 1dB or so level bump it gives you). I'm not worried about my hearing - my abilities are for others to judge, but I seem to do ok. I do need better monitoring in this environment for sure! This was with the SSL emu - which one were you using?

Quote:
Originally Posted by popmann View Post
What you should NOT ever do is have the offline off sampling different than you're monitoring. It will sound different, and I don't know about you, but I prefer my mix to sound like what I'm hearing while I mix. I actually bounce in real time, so...no difference for me.
Agreed.
#71
28th December 2012
Old 28th December 2012
  #71
Gear nut
 
Joined: Jun 2012
Posts: 97

Quote:
Originally Posted by popmann View Post
No, he very clearly posted that below 96k they were NOT accurate, and he wished in retrospect that he hadn't allowed users to turn the overampling off. But, that he wasn't going to change it now, because the are people who reported they liked the sound with it off.

If you turn on 2x and can't hear the difference, you either need better monitoring, or need to not be mixing audio. Beyond that? Ehh...like recording at higher than 88/96, I can't reliably tell the difference for better or worse.
No, he very clearly posted that the most accurate model of the SSL is with oversampling off at 44.1khz.

"FACT: In my most recent tests comparing the VCC vs the actual desks that were modeled, the most authentic emulation was with the OVERSAMPLING turned OFF!!!!...

Oversampling has its positives and negatives. There are some nice things that happen when its on for sure. But in the case of simply replicating the desks, I'd be lying if I didn't just tell you my recent tests found it most authentic while OFF. I'm gonna work with the dev team on this for a future update.. I don't like the notion of Oversampling.. I'd rather have one sound: PERFECT! But this should be good news for some people's CPU's!...

My test was at 44.1khz. With the Brit 4k, I was able to nearly cancel out the VCC mix and the actual desk we used, oversampling off."

Source:
https://www.facebook.com/permalink.p...26783170728757

For those that don't have Facebook:
Slate Digital VCC Available Now
#72
28th December 2012
Old 28th December 2012
  #72
Lives for gear
 
popmann's Avatar
 
Joined: Nov 2004
Location: Nashville
Posts: 4,690

Alright. Steven's been inconsistent. The discussion I referred to was in his (or it might've been fabrice's) explanation of why the over sampling in VTM is NOT defeat able.

His SSL sounds like crap, IMO...which may BE accurrate...maybe that explains my hatred of that model. My 2x is always on. And I never pick the ssl. I use the RCA, API, and trident 90% of the time. Occasional Neve when I'm sent some really thin tracks. I did recently get some bass tracks that loved his ssl channel. So, I'm happy to have it in there...I do think, though, his constantly using the SSL tests doesn't do the product justice. I know why he does it-new engineers are under the impression that an ssl sounds good because they've been used for a lot of big records. Funny how time changes opinions. Soon, I expect some to begin to love on say mix24 mixers-another step down in sonics for function.

If you don't hear a difference...i don't know what to tell you.
#73
28th December 2012
Old 28th December 2012
  #73
Gear nut
 
Joined: Jun 2012
Posts: 97

Is this the post you were thinking of?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven Slate View Post
I hate the fact that VCC gives so many options for oversampling. I wish we hadn't done that. For the VTM, I wanted to make an algorithm that recreated the machines to 100% authenticity, and use whatever oversampling method got us there. And that's what you have in that plugin.

Due to the fact that many people have different opinions as to which oversampling they prefer on the VCC, we won't remove them. But if I could go back, I'd have simplified that section to be honest.

Cheers,
Steven
I stand by what I posted before, if somebody isn't getting along with VCC then it's certainly worthwhile to experiment with different oversampling settings as they DO sound different; I personally find myself gravitating towards the Trident, Neve, and API models with 2x oversampling for the sounds that I prefer. However, your original post implies that using VCC at lower project sampling rates without any oversampling engaged is an incorrect usage of the plugin, while the fact of the matter is that the manufacturer actually endorses using the plugin exactly in that manner. It comes down to a matter of personal preference for what sounds you like; Slate can hear the difference between oversampling modes and he prefers the sound without any engaged, I'm sure there are many others out there that agree with him and I can understand that even if I don't happen to be one of them.
#74
28th December 2012
Old 28th December 2012
  #74
Gear maniac
 
SpencerWalters's Avatar
 
Joined: Feb 2012
Posts: 165

Quote:
Originally Posted by bugs View Post
My iLok2 failed on Cristmas Day.
Poor little guy just wanted ONE day off this year...
#75
28th December 2012
Old 28th December 2012
  #75
Lives for gear
 
popmann's Avatar
 
Joined: Nov 2004
Location: Nashville
Posts: 4,690

Yes, that's probably the quote...or at least from the era of discussion.

I wish the oversampling didn't sound so good...I wouldn't be pushing my proc on every mix I do now. But, without it, I wouldnt have as rosy an opinion of the product either...which is why I poked my head in here.
#76
28th December 2012
Old 28th December 2012
  #76
Moderator
 
psycho_monkey's Avatar
 
Joined: Jun 2006
Location: Sydney via London

Quote:
Originally Posted by popmann View Post
His SSL sounds like crap, IMO...which may BE accurrate...maybe that explains my hatred of that model.
I politely disagree. I find for tracks that don't need the bass hump of the Neve, it works very well. Certainly it's the most subtle of the pack.

Quote:
Originally Posted by popmann View Post
My 2x is always on. And I never pick the ssl. I use the RCA, API, and trident 90% of the time. Occasional Neve when I'm sent some really thin tracks. I did recently get some bass tracks that loved his ssl channel. So, I'm happy to have it in there...
Taste innit? I'm not that fussed by the API/Trident models...I felt the mid range they added wasn't generally as flattering as the other models. I have to confess I've not really delved into the RCA that much - tried it on one track, wasn't that fussed, haven't gone back. I'll usually be using the Neve or SSL models.

Quote:
Originally Posted by popmann View Post
I do think, though, his constantly using the SSL tests doesn't do the product justice. I know why he does it-new engineers are under the impression that an ssl sounds good because they've been used for a lot of big records. Funny how time changes opinions.
The SSL is (I guess) the easiest model to do a fair comparison with - an 8048 isn't exactly the most calibrate-able desk on the planet!

Re the "sound" of an SSL - like it or not, most popular rock records (regularly held up here as "classics" of their era), not to mention a hell of a lot of the high end pop/urban records, were mixed on an SSL. It DOES sound good for those styles - or at least, it sounds like people want it to sound! Yes we all know that originally they were chosen for function not sound...but it's really no different to the lust for the "sound" of tape. It defines a particular sound, and that's what people want, even if "back in the day" they weren't that fussed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by popmann View Post
If you don't hear a difference...i don't know what to tell you.
Personally, like I said - I've only tested it on the SSL model. Not had a listen on anything else (yet) - though I will. I would just defend the accusation that VCC doesn't bring anything worthwhile without oversampling - I very much think it does.
nas
#77
28th December 2012
Old 28th December 2012
  #77
nas
Lives for gear
 
nas's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2008
Location: Jordan
Posts: 1,011

I LOVE VCC! With the various console emulations, saturation adjustments, oversampling and level calibration settings.. I've found it to be very versatile indeed. Especially when using different consoles for different instruments. You can get as transparent or as coloured as you want and I would say it has brought an "improvement" about 95% of the time to my mixes. More often than not.. less is more and the summed total (pun intended) makes the difference.

I did not care for VTM after an extensive demo trial... maybe I need more time with it, but for now I will pass.
#78
29th December 2012
Old 29th December 2012
  #78
Lives for gear
 
popmann's Avatar
 
Joined: Nov 2004
Location: Nashville
Posts: 4,690

The SSL BUSS is the most subtle. Least crosstalk. But, of course, this is all taste.Funny--I think the SSL channel IS the midrange adding one (emphasizing 1-5k'ish). Trident scoops it in the same range, emphasizing higher. API I find it the most neutral--but, it depends how hard you push it--it changes DRASTICALLY as it's pushed harder. It's not at ALL neutral when pushed. It sounds so different, I have my VCC configured for each model--and there are two APIs. One driven, one not.

But, sure...what in these discussions isn't taste? There's just a difference in the REASON SSLs were used on all those great sounding records and the sound of it's input and buss circuitry--that was all I was saying. They were used over better sounding circuit/mixers because of function--the function that's available in every DAW I've used out of the box. I mean, I'd rather mix on an SSL than a API, too, in the real world-for the function. BUT...given the ability to blend the function with SOUND of the more musical circuits, is IMO, the huge win of this type of software.

Anyway...carry on. It's funny-I'm mixing a kind of retro metal thing right now--thought for SURE I'd gravitate to the SSL, since that was responsible for those 80s crunch rock sounds...not so much...
#79
29th December 2012
Old 29th December 2012
  #79
Lives for gear
 
king2070lplaya's Avatar
 
Joined: Apr 2009
Location: Illinois
Posts: 1,421

Maybe this isn't the right thread to ask this in, but what is the difference between using vcc on each channel as opposed to using, say, a Waves VEQ or HLS on each channel? What does the vcc do to reproduce the sound of the console that these other emulations do not?
#80
29th December 2012
Old 29th December 2012
  #80
Lives for gear
 
popmann's Avatar
 
Joined: Nov 2004
Location: Nashville
Posts: 4,690

I don't know what HLS is? You mean Waves NLS? NonLinearSumming? It's the same concept. Slate was first. He's done (IMO) a HUGELY better job with the busses...and included consoles I like better.

VEQ has an analog switch that models the analog distortions and phase shifts of the EQ circuit. VCC contains two parts--a channel (the line input amp) and the buss (summing buss amp).

I think to compare the little harmonic "something" the VEQ adds...this would be more along the lines of switching preamps (in retrospect) in terms of overall sound shaping.

But, subtlety of signal flow aside, NLS was just Waves' answer to VCC. I demo'd it. While I really liked some of the channels (particularly Neve pushed hard)...I couldn't get over the lack of cross talk and serious levels of compression going on in the busses.

The Magic of VCC, IMO, is the buss models. The channels I'd give up if I had to...in fact, turn off oversampling on THEM alone...minor...but, the busses...NEED it. Night and day, IME. Also note, that's the component that eats CPU for breakfast, too.
#81
29th December 2012
Old 29th December 2012
  #81
Lives for gear
 
markham's Avatar
 
Joined: Jun 2009
Location: No longer in Pago Pago! Now in Durham, NC.
Posts: 1,197

Waves HLS = their Helios channel (in the Kramer bundle). It actually sounds really good, IMO.

As popmann said, the VCC is emulating both the channels and the busses. If I'm not mistaken, the Waves VEQs are really just emulating the EQ circuits, not the preamps associated with them. On the HLS channel, though, Waves is really modeling the whole channel from start to finish, and it does sound more complete to me.
#82
29th December 2012
Old 29th December 2012
  #82
Gear addict
 
patheticus's Avatar
 
Joined: Feb 2003
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 360

I didn't read this whole thread but I don't like VCC. I bought it when it first came out because of all the hype. Tried it on a few projects and thought it made things sound awkward and sit weird.
Quote
1
#83
29th December 2012
Old 29th December 2012
  #83
Lives for gear
 
king2070lplaya's Avatar
 
Joined: Apr 2009
Location: Illinois
Posts: 1,421

Does it simulate the busses simply by adding similar Harmonic distortion to what the old consoles did, or is there more to it than that?
#84
30th December 2012
Old 30th December 2012
  #84
Lives for gear
 
e-are's Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,500

I just purchased vcc and seemed to encounter a bug maybe. Sometimes when i put a bus instance on a track it freezes my mouse and keyboard. Very strange. Im using Cubase 6.5"64 bit on a mac. Strange.

Sent from my SPH-D710
New Reply Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook  Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter  Submit Thread to LinkedIn LinkedIn  Submit Thread to Google+ Google+ 
 
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Similar Threads
Thread
Thread Starter / Forum
Replies
Jay Kahrs / Remote Possibilities in Acoustic Music & Location Recording
129
cajonezzz / Remote Possibilities in Acoustic Music & Location Recording
15
lomky / Remote Possibilities in Acoustic Music & Location Recording
4
roonsbane / Remote Possibilities in Acoustic Music & Location Recording
13
Sir Bob / Remote Possibilities in Acoustic Music & Location Recording
1

Forum Jump
 
Register FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

SEO by vBSEO ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.