View Single Post
Old 27th August 2019
Originally Posted by Ziko123 View Post
Pro's of Slate ML-1 :

Slate VMR is latency free, so no monitoring issue.
At 96Khz, latency is under 2 ms in most thunderbolt interfaces, and around 3-3.6 ms for windows usb. Which will be universal for any microphone.

Sure, print the track, once you have recorded it with your favourite mic emulation. Who has stopped you from committing ?

I want guys to see an obvious benefit of changing microphone as in real, Sony 800m for verse, and using C12 on chorus,
without changing anything else, just mic emulation!

And what any EQ won't fix is the mic sound. You will be struggling to adjust using EQ's for a bright recorded mic, and desiring a warm vocal or a vice versa.

Economics :

Every equipment and gadgets, right from PC to monitors/convertors/headphones etc every single thing comes from money.
After 1 year of warrenty, maintaince/repairing issues are another headache.

Technology is advancing. Operating system/plugins/DAW's will get more complex and feature rich, requiring you to update systems every 2-3 years.

Of course, you can go ahead and shell out 8000-10000$ for classic microphones, if you have enough cash. Economically that will be a sheer waste, as only the known and Big-Budget product houses/running studios use these microphones. They produce thousands of songs in a year. With such earnings, cost of these recording equipment get covered.

But of course luxurious people have capability to afford anything.

@ Thread Owner, guy aspire to make huge selling records and make more and more music on pro level, in an affordable way.

Going for Slate VMS, Everything Bundle and VRS8(if he can stretch out) will make him compete hand in hand with
Mastering level Professionals. Not Mix engineers, but Mastering engineers known for having the most premium convertors/ interfaces. VRS8 beats Prism's convertors in specifications.
Rest is upto his production capability.

Townsend Sphere+ UAD will cost him 4X times than Slate ML-1.

Sphere 22 is 1800$+, UAD X6/X8, 2000$

Sums up to 4000$. Same for Antelope.(With poor customer support)

>>> Slate VMS ML-1 is 799$ only, and in upcoming winter deals, will be easily available at 500$.


Steven Slate
makes gears,plugins with an ideology, for everyone to afford, use, make great music, and spend holidays chilling in dream locations with saved money.

And in case you have any issues, Slate Support will resolve and help you out fastest. Even it requires units swapping direct from production house. They really care for you !
Their CEO personally helps you out and responds to any query.
I have no complaints about Slate - personally the marketing is a bit gung ho for my reserved British sensibilities but I use their plugins heavily, no complaints there.

I do have a few issues with your thinking re workflow though.

Firstly - you’re basing your round trip latency on low buffer sizes. That’s fine if you’re willing to play the game of freezing everything/tracking against backing tracks rather than the multitrack, but it’s not a great workflow.

I personally don’t think tracking “through” the DAW is tight enough, even at low buffer size. People simply play and sing better if latency is near zero. Most of the time therefore I’m using HDX; I also like the Apollo system, but the slate setup runs on neither (correct me if I’m wrong, but their virtual studio setup thing doesn’t run the mic modelling in low latency mode like the Townsend or edge systems on uad/antelope, right? It’s al software based?).

If you’ve not tracked this way, I’d recommend trying it; if you have and you see no difference, fine for you, but I have reasons for not liking it based on experience! I do feel there’s a whole generation of singers who’ve never had a great headphone mix and IMO could be one of the reasons people are so disparaging of modern singers. Recording vocals is really one of the last places in modern pop any engineering expertise is needed, so it’s not much surprise it gets screwed up so easily.

(And if you’re basing your reviews of an interface on published specs...please get some real world experience, that’s not how it works! It kind of weakens the rest of your arguments if you’re saying “well the specs are better so it’s better than a prism).

Don’t even suggest ANY digital processing is “latency free”. Digital is never latency free, the best systems are only “near zero” and anything involving the DAW software buffer isn’t near zero - you need cue monitoring software for that (and uad or similar if you want to run fx).

I get the cost analysis. I’m lucky - I work in studios where I have access to great mics, I own several great mics, I’m not really the target market. I can see if the workflow can be sorted, why it could be very useful for some.

Switching mics mid song? It’s the sort of idea suggested by those who don’t actually make records day in/out. Yep in theory it sounds practice there’s so many other variables, it’s much more effective to choose one that works and stick with it. There’s plenty of other things I can do to manipulate signals to change them.

Just as an example, I was recording an acoustic song (piano/vocals) the other day, very sparse. With the vocal, I had some parts of the take on my Wagner 47; others on an sm7 in the control room. When is finished matching sounds, you couldn’t tell where one started and the other finished. It’d have been easier with all on the 47, but I made it work.

It’s a bit like the suggestions to “try every mic” to find the best one for vocals. No one on a paying session does that - at most you try 2-3, and only go further if nothing is working. The difference between the real world and theory, and based on experience.