Slate Digital VIRTUAL TAPE MACHINES Available NOW

[Silver Sonya]

Originally Posted by Animus

I would say revealing potential bugs/issues is just as important in learning about a product you might want to buy don't you think?

Sure. Not the forum for it, is all I'm saying.

Also it's unnecessarily confusing for Slate, who need to be able to address problems in a linear, orderly fashion.

- c

[bryan k]

I have Prepared the before/after files the one poster was requesting.

-One mix with 1/2" 30 ips and FG9 tape
-One mix with 2" 15ips and 456 tape
-One mix with NO VTM

Problem is, I keep getting connection errors trying to upload them here. Ill try again in an hour. If it still doesnt work, ill wait till morning to upload them.

[CaptainHook]

Originally Posted by Mercado_Negro

Be careful, use a HPF befoe VTM if you're running it at 15ips just to be on the safe side.

I still got clicks even when trying to put a HPF before VTM .. ?

[Mercado_Negro]

Originally Posted by CaptainHook

I still got clicks even when trying to put a HPF before VTM .. ?

Strange, a HPF fixes the problem here. Maybe you're experiencing a different problem? Did you submit a ticket at Slate's Helpdesk with all the information? That'd help a lot.

[winrob]

Hey everybody,

I had a go with the files Mercado posted but i wasn't really getting anywhere.

So i recorded a little vamp in my converted (but untreated, atm) shed to use as a demo for these plugins. Just a couple of bars with guitar, drums and bass. Recorded straight into my interface (M-Audio FTU 8R).

No other processing has been applied(no eq, filtering or compression), just VTM and VCC and the files have been level matched as best i could. There are versions with no fx, VCC(on tracks and master), VTM (on tracks only), VTM(on tracks and master), VCC(on both)+VTM(on tracks) and VCC(both)+VTM(both).

I did it this way so people could hear what these plugins are doing to raw tracks. Any questions, fire away.


Download VTM compare audio.zip from Sendspace.com - send big files the easy way

[Beany]

Originally Posted by CaptainHook

I still got clicks even when trying to put a HPF before VTM .. ?

Try downloading the latest Pace Drivers, re-booting, removing the instances of VTM in your track and then inserting a new instance of it (you really do need to do this bit, I was still getting clicks until I did this - not sure why though).

Slate haven't put a Bug Report/Tech Issue section in the VTM area yet so not sure where to post this...

EDIT: DAMN, the clicks are back, seem to re-appear after using it for a while.

[Beany]

Originally Posted by AshleySmith06

The most up to date versions of the iLok Client/Driver software and PACE InterLok Drivers can be downloaded here:

Pace Support
iLok.com - iLok Software Downloads

[Fabrice Gabriel]

Originally Posted by thehightenor

What troubles me slightly with "tape plugins" (all of them) is the fact that because you haven't actually changed medium (i.e. actual analog tape) that really by definition they can be nothing more than a digital preset for digital comp, EQ and saturation.

Why did anybody actually have to wait for a "tape plugin" surely the exact same thing can achieved with a combination of digital plugins, being that a "tape plugin' is just .... well a digital plugin.

Now I understand a "tape plugin" is very convenient, as presets usually are, and I will probably buy the VTM simply out of convenience but that's all it is ultimately .... a convenient digital EQ, Compression and Saturation preset, no?

tht

Actually no, the algorithm of the VTM is way more complicated than a simple set of plugins chained together.
While some "tape" plugin may use this trick (EQ=>sat=>EQ), reproducing exactly what happens in a tape requires some custom design algorithms.

For instance, the high frequency "compression" behavior of the tape could be averagely simulated using multiband compression or multiband saturation, still it would sound way different than a tape does.

The algorithm does not contain any kind of "compressor like" component, as it would be in a regular compressor with attack, release, ratio, etc..

There is a lot of myths regarding digital and analog process, and if this was possible to replicate the sound of tape with digital EQs, comps and saturation, it would be possible to do it in the analog domain..
While some analog boxes pretend to do so, I'm quite sure it's still pretty far from a real analog tape processing.
What digital adds (or remove) is the fact that you have some limitations (sampling frequency, bit depth, CPU power) you have to consider when converting an analog signal to digital or when processing a digital signal with an algorithm.

Even though you resolved the issues produced by these limitations, you still have to reproduce the exact behavior of the original hardware, which is usually pretty tricky within these limitations.

Originally Posted by bmanic

I get the feeling a lot of people just have these strange ideas about what a process is and like to dissect them by using the very limited, very high level, building blocks they have at their current disposal (in this case a compressor, an EQ and saturation). If things only were this simple..

That's usually what has been done thru the years.. People being more and more educated, hopefully it won't be the case anymore !

Originally Posted by A4722

This is not to say that the virtual tape machines do not sound good, by any means, but comparing how digital re-creations of a source react to digital processing is not the same as learning how live signals are changed by tape and/or digital recording processes.

Indeed, as I said above, we are processing a digital signal within the digital limitations. I'd advice to use the VTM always at 96k, thus having the whole session recorded at 96k. But most people still records at 44.1 or 48, and still at this frequency we need the VTM to sound as close as it can be to perfection.
But at 44.1, we are already processing a signal which has already been sampled, so even though some things physically disappeared from the signal (frequencies above 22k), we can get no significant differences with the original when the algorithm is carefully designed.

Originally Posted by diggo

How the hell does this stuff get past Slate's QA?

I laughed at the video where Fabrice goes on and on about how Slate Digital models properly while smearing the reps of other developers by implying they fudge the truth etc. OK, fair play if it's true. But that works both ways - development is not only about designing "advanced algorithms" - it's also about the obligation to deliver on QA to customers.

Well, here's a mirror held up to Fabrice: "unlike other developers, you dont fix your bugs properly!"

Sean

Congrats to all these other developers who never had a single bug at the plugin release !! I'd be glad to meet them.
Working on algorithms is made in a controlled environment (i.e., we pretty much control the way calculations are done within the program), even if sometimes, there is issues which shows up on specific configurations.

Regarding the DAWs, each developer has now to address lots of different environments which are sometimes implementing standards in a very "specific" way.

My advice would be as always to send a bug report to the support, because obvioulsy this was an issue which was not revealed during the beta test.
I believe it's not possible to have every single different configuration addressed during the beta test, and by experience there is always some issues which has not been detected during the beta test.
That's why the support is here and we'll update the plugins to fix this kind of bug !



Fabrice

[jrhager84]

Originally Posted by Fabrice Gabriel

Actually no, the algorithm of the VTM is way more complicated than a simple set of plugins chained together.
While some "tape" plugin may use this trick (EQ=>sat=>EQ), reproducing exactly what happens in a tape requires some custom design algorithms.

For instance, the high frequency "compression" behavior of the tape could be averagely simulated using multiband compression or multiband saturation, still it would sound way different than a tape does.

The algorithm does not contain any kind of "compressor like" component, as it would be in a regular compressor with attack, release, ratio, etc..

There is a lot of myths regarding digital and analog process, and if this was possible to replicate the sound of tape with digital EQs, comps and saturation, it would be possible to do it in the analog domain..
While some analog boxes pretend to do so, I'm quite sure it's still pretty far from a real analog tape processing.
What digital adds (or remove) is the fact that you have some limitations (sampling frequency, bit depth, CPU power) you have to consider when converting an analog signal to digital or when processing a digital signal with an algorithm.

Even though you resolved the issues produced by these limitations, you still have to reproduce the exact behavior of the original hardware, which is usually pretty tricky within these limitations.



That's usually what has been done thru the years.. People being more and more educated, hopefully it won't be the case anymore !



Indeed, as I said above, we are processing a digital signal within the digital limitations. I'd advice to use the VTM always at 96k, thus having the whole session recorded at 96k. But most people still records at 44.1 or 48, and still at this frequency we need the VTM to sound as close as it can be to perfection.
But at 44.1, we are already processing a signal which has already been sampled, so even though some things physically disappeared from the signal (frequencies above 22k), we can get no significant differences with the original when the algorithm is carefully designed.



Congrats to all these other developers who never had a single bug at the plugin release !! I'd be glad to meet them.
Working on algorithms is made in a controlled environment (i.e., we pretty much control the way calculations are done within the program), even if sometimes, there is issues which shows up on specific configurations.

Regarding the DAWs, each developer has now to address lots of different environments which are sometimes implementing standards in a very "specific" way.

My advice would be as always to send a bug report to the support, because obvioulsy this was an issue which was not revealed during the beta test.
I believe it's not possible to have every single different configuration addressed during the beta test, and by experience there is always some issues which has not been detected during the beta test.
That's why the support is here and we'll update the plugins to fix this kind of bug !



Fabrice

Surely you mean any sample rate above 48khz, right? 88/24 user here!

[thehightenor]

Actually no, the algorithm of the VTM is way more complicated than a simple set of plugins chained together.
While some "tape" plugin may use this trick (EQ=>sat=>EQ), reproducing exactly what happens in a tape requires some custom design algorithms.

For instance, the high frequency "compression" behavior of the tape could be averagely simulated using multiband compression or multiband saturation, still it would sound way different than a tape does.

The algorithm does not contain any kind of "compressor like" component, as it would be in a regular compressor with attack, release, ratio, etc..

There is a lot of myths regarding digital and analog process, and if this was possible to replicate the sound of tape with digital EQs, comps and saturation, it would be possible to do it in the analog domain..
While some analog boxes pretend to do so, I'm quite sure it's still pretty far from a real analog tape processing.
What digital adds (or remove) is the fact that you have some limitations (sampling frequency, bit depth, CPU power) you have to consider when converting an analog signal to digital or when processing a digital signal with an algorithm.

Even though you resolved the issues produced by these limitations, you still have to reproduce the exact behavior of the original hardware, which is usually pretty tricky within these limitations.

Thank you, this is good to know.

The VCC has genuinely transformed the quality of the work leaving my studio, I'm sure the VTM is going to add yet another fantastic dimension.

Also than you for replying politely, something some people find a hard thing to do on forum boards.

Best
tht

[elmolemon]

I guess just like me, people use low cuts a lot, so i'm a little puzzled putting the VTM first in every channel.

How would you guys deal with unwanted low frequencies, especially with softsynths?

Low cut before VTM or after VTM, to gain additional saturation and harmonics?

[jac]

It depends how it sounds. Usually before as i consider cutting as part of sound before hitting the tape.

Originally Posted by elmolemon

I guess just like me, people use low cuts a lot, so i'm a little puzzled putting the VTM first in every channel.

How would you guys deal with unwanted low frequencies, especially with softsynths?

Low cut before VTM or after VTM, to gain additional saturation and harmonics?

[mikeyman]

Originally Posted by jac

It depends how it sounds. Usually before as i consider cutting as part of sound before hitting the tape.

yea you get use to rolling off bass or using a High pass filter when recording

[Fabrice Gabriel]

Originally Posted by jrhager84

Surely you mean any sample rate above 48khz, right? 88/24 user here!

Yes ! You also have to take care about your converters in this case.. Most converters switch for a different anti-aliasing filter for higher sampling frequencies, but some does not..
Which means that you don't really get a broader frequency range or smoother phase behavior, just more samples to work with !

Originally Posted by thehightenor

Thank you, this is good to know.

The VCC has genuinely transformed the quality of the work leaving my studio, I'm sure the VTM is going to add yet another fantastic dimension.

Also than you for replying politely, something some people find a hard thing to do on forum boards.

Best
tht

You're welcome !

Actually I think that your post was interesting, sound engineers are not supposed to be DSP engineers so that's also our job to explain a little deeper what's going on in these algos.

So indeed I did not feel the need to be rude.


Fabrice

[bryan k]

More Before/Afters snippets......

-One mix with 1/2" 30 ips and FG9 tape
-One mix with 2" 15ips and 456 tape
-One mix with NO VTM

[stringbean01]

Originally Posted by thehightenor

I don't want to make bad of "tape plugin's" although the name "tape plugin" always sounded like an oxymoron to me.

Plus I own two Slate plugins the VCC and SSD4 both of which I think are superb software tools, class leading even.

What troubles me slightly with "tape plugins" (all of them) is the fact that because you haven't actually changed medium (i.e. actual analog tape) that really by definition they can be nothing more than a digital preset for digital comp, EQ and saturation.

I was thinking this, is a loose conceptual way.

Digital EQ = 01001001001
Digital Compression = 01001001001
Digital Saturation = 010010010101

Digital Tape Emulation = 00100100100101

Well you see what I mean, the "tape plugin" not being actual tape must be functioning as a preset for the other three digital signal processes of EQ, compression and saturation, plus some modulation of course for the pretend wow and flutter.

Why did anybody actually have to wait for a "tape plugin" surely the exact same thing can achieved with a combination of digital plugins, being that a "tape plugin' is just .... well a digital plugin.

Now I understand a "tape plugin" is very convenient, as presets usually are, and I will probably buy the VTM simply out of convenience but that's all it is ultimately .... a convenient digital EQ, Compression and Saturation preset, no?

tht

face. palm.

[A Fak]

I have a question for the Slate guys. Why is VTM calibrated by default at -15 and not -18 like VCC? It's easy enough to change but i'm wondering if i'm missing something here.

[bryan k]

Originally Posted by A Fak

I have a question for the Slate guys. Why is VTM calibrated by default at -15 and not -18 like VCC? It's easy enough to change but i'm wondering if i'm missing something here.

-15 seems to work best for my files. If I move it up to -18, it gets to saturated for me. I think we should look less at numbers and use our ears to decide this calibration setting, IMO.

Im sure they choose -15 for a reason. It probably sounded best there.

[meloco_go]

Doesn't the calibration only affect where you wave would end up on VU?

[Chris Lago]

Originally Posted by bryan k

More Before/Afters snippets......

-One mix with 1/2" 30 ips and FG9 tape
-One mix with 2" 15ips and 456 tape
-One mix with NO VTM

The song is pretty good, I enjoyed it. I think I like the 15ips one better.

[Mercado_Negro]

Originally Posted by A Fak

I have a question for the Slate guys. Why is VTM calibrated by default at -15 and not -18 like VCC? It's easy enough to change but i'm wondering if i'm missing something here.

From the user guide:

We set the Virtual Tape Machines default calibration to -15dB because we thought it was more representative to the default saturation level a real tape machine would exhibit, with typical RMS levels of digital files. In other words, we wanted the user to load the VTM and to have the "typical" tape sound with the most common digital files.

I highlithed "digital files" because I suppose Fabrice decided this level to prevent over saturation, some sort of "headroom" for people who don't actually pay attention to levels while recording ITB. As far as I can tell, from my listening tests, if you record/mix at -18dB then it's completely OK to set the calibration to -18dB.

[FLYINGJAY]

Originally Posted by Chris Lago

The song is pretty good, I enjoyed it. I think I like the 15ips one better.

Nice shades Chris

Sent from my PC36100 using Gearslutz App

[bryan k]

Originally Posted by Chris Lago

The song is pretty good, I enjoyed it. I think I like the 15ips one better.

Thanks Chris! I have a hard time picking one over the other. I like the 30ips (FG9) because of its open dynamics and things "pop" a little more clearer, ......but the 15ips and 456 tape gels so much nicer together and gives the highs that "nice enjoyable comfy blanket" sound.

Both are far better than the No_VTM version, for sure.

[Mercado_Negro]

Originally Posted by meloco_go

Doesn't the calibration only affect where you wave would end up on VU?

No, the calibration also changes the headroom of the plug-in (and it's different for each configuration: machine/tape/speed). If your calibration is set to -15dB and your VU meters are barely touching 0dBVU then you're OK. If your VU meters are above or below 0dBVU then you should increase/decrease the calibration accordingly. The goal is to start with VU meters at 0dBVU (or a little bit less), and then go up or down depending on your taste (with the Input knob). In addition, some configurations have more headroom than others. For example, the FG9 tape has much more headroom than the FG456 which means you can hit it harder (needle peaking above 0dBVU) and the distortion is minimal up to a point.

[A Fak]

Originally Posted by bryan k

-15 seems to work best for my files. If I move it up to -18, it gets to saturated for me. I think we should look less at numbers and use our ears to decide this calibration setting, IMO.

Im sure they choose -15 for a reason. It probably sounded best there.

I'm pretty sure the calibration doesn't adjust the sound for better or worse just the point where you start to saturate. What I've been doing is setting it to -18 to keep everything the same (OCD? haha) then I adjust the input/output knob to dial in the amount of saturation I need.

Originally Posted by Mercado_Negro

From the user guide:

We set the Virtual Tape Machines default calibration to -15dB because we thought it was more representative to the default saturation level a real tape machine would exhibit, with typical RMS levels of digital files. In other words, we wanted the user to load the VTM and to have the "typical" tape sound with the most common digital files.

This was my assumption to have more saturation off the bat for that instant wow effect. Thanks for the clarification!

[Chris Lago]

Originally Posted by bryan k

Thanks Chris! I have a hard time picking one over the other. I like the 30ips (FG9) because of its open dynamics and things "pop" a little more clearer, ......but the 15ips and 456 tape gels so much nicer together and gives the highs that "nice enjoyable comfy blanket" sound.

Both are far better than the No_VTM version, for sure.

They're both great, don't stress about it, choose one and don't look back!

[Steven Slate]

I wanted to calibrate the VTM at -15db because this is what most accurately reflects the calibration with the analog machines. At -15db cal, I can send a track, say the "Go It Alone" mix from the audio demos... onto both the actual 1/2" and 2" machines.. the peak of the VU needle and the sound of the machines matches the VTM exactly. So this parallel from analog to digital was important to me.. far more so than so called digital standards. Note that -18db would actually make it so that the default of the VTM is MORE saturated, not less.

In the end, close your eyes when working with the VTM and drive the input up or down until it sounds right anyway!

Cheers,
Steven

[Jeezo]

Thks for the info ...so VTM cal is -15 and vcc -18 ?

[A Fak]

Originally Posted by Steven Slate

I wanted to calibrate the VTM at -15db because this is what most accurately reflects the calibration with the analog machines. At -15db cal, I can send a track, say the "Go It Alone" mix from the audio demos... onto both the actual 1/2" and 2" machines.. the peak of the VU needle and the sound of the machines matches the VTM exactly. So this parallel from analog to digital was important to me.. far more so than so called digital standards. Note that -18db would actually make it so that the default of the VTM is MORE saturated, not less.

In the end, close your eyes when working with the VTM and drive the input up or down until it sounds right anyway!

Ahh that's right -18 would saturated more.

[Mercado_Negro]

Originally Posted by A Fak

Ahh that's right -18 would saturated more.

Of course, you're decreasing the headroom