He did it again Slate

[waxman]

Check out this shoot out. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPR8tOF ... el=SlateTV

Slate has done it again. Sell some mics and get this before the end of the month (August) and you get 3 more mic types with it. With DP 9.1 low latency it will be a great upgrade to your studio. ps nice groove M.D.

[monkey man]

Actually, 'Cornies, you get five new mic models if you order before August 31st, meaning a total of eight all up. Three were promised for quite some time, but the first separately-available pack turned out to be five models. It'll retail for $500, by the way, more than the expected $300 or so, but still around the $100-per-mic level, which isn't bad when you think about it.

I redirected my long-term lay-buy for a Neve pre into this and my MOTU AVB upgrade, figuring the Neve, at least at my lowly level and non-existent pay grade, would be made redundant. The MOTU money was stolen a couple o' months ago, but at least I got to order this VMS.

Haven't received it yet, and I mightn't even unbox it 'til next year when I'm hoping I'll be able to start recording, such is my confidence in the efficacy of the product, if there's such a thing. I've followed the BeerGutz thread for a long time and am convinced this system is the real deal.

Take a look here if you like. You get to ask Steven directly about it:

https://www.gearslutz.com/board/product ... ystem.html

[kassonica]

Its a great thread that one Nicky..

I'm curious to hear it....

Not sure it will replace a 47/67 etc...

[mhschmieder]

Interestingly, the audio demos put up recently (mostly of the existing mic models, I think, as it was 251 and 47 models mostly), convinced me to stick with hardware.

I only have a C12 clone so far, and I may keep it that way, so by the time I think I'm ready to add another vintage vocal mic, maybe VMS will be more three-dimensional sounding.

Possibly in a mix, one wouldn't be able to tell the difference even with the current version. And certainly it's amazing how close the timbre and detail can be, so I am in extreme admiration.

If I hadn't already bought the Peluso P12, and had zero vintage vocal mics, I think the $1000+ investment in VMS would hold sway over me, as it does for our beloved Monkey Man.

And in spite of what I just said, I think I can easily recommend this product as a wise investment to most project studios. I simply don't think it's 100% there, like the hyperbole, but it's awfully close.

[waxman]

True it will never be "100% there" because "there" is the original. I don't think it is intended to be a clone. It is a new approach. I am dumping my Blue Bottle and my Blueberry. Pocketing about $3k and I believe the end product of my projects will be better. Being able to change mic models on individual voices or even per song is a big plus. This is an evolutionary product. So far every Slate Product I get is a huge step up.

[monkey man]

I feel the same way, Greg.

Remember folks, that you can dial in the intensity of the virtual mic's character/istics too, even beyond the "100%-accurate" point, and by some margin, in effect allowing you to create a caricature of sorts of the original. I think it's pretty much a saturation thing, where the natural distortion, harmonic content and resonance characteristics of the mic are exaggerated.

Yeah Mark, I was thankfully allowed to redirect the lay-buy money for that AKG and the Neve. This covered the VMS and the DB-25 snakes I'll need for the MOTU AVB upgrade. Unfortunately I lost most of the remaining money for the actual interfaces, but I'm more geed-up than ever and the fire in my belly will now have an extra 9 months to a year to grow. That's the silver lining I've chosen to place on the situation.

Also, Mark, I believe the 2nd mic pack is going to have a C12 model in it! Yes! That was the single-most desired model for me all along; I figured it'd help lift my deep, bassy, "dull" voice in the mix. It's not your Peluso, but it'll be in the same family, so to speak. Food for thought for you, perhaps.

EDIT:

Its a great thread that one Nicky..

I'm curious to hear it....

Not sure it will replace a 47/67 etc...

It won't, but it'll replace 90+% of it.

[waxman]

The VMS system is a different approach. Being able to audition that many mics so quickly is so cool. Having the ability to try 5 different mics on a singer during the first run through is crazy. Then being able to add or subtract the weight of saturation. I bought the Blue Bottle with 10 caps just to be able to do that. The PS for the Blue can be adjusted to increase/decrease saturation. But it was alway "time out let me change this capsule... It's VMS eliminates another step that has traditionally been in the way of the creative process. So I'm down with it...

Slate Digital is certainly changing everything I'm doing from Mixing and tracking on a Touch Screen and the Batch Command (one button automation) for the tasks I do again and again. The Everything Bundle which works and sounds great. The GUI on the Everything Bundle is the best. I wish UAD would show icons in DP inserts and not just the UAD mixer. But that is apparently a DP function. Whoever is coming up with all this great gear at an amazingly low price deserves an award. I hope Slate has a long run before selling out to Avid or some other dinosaur who burns the brand and loses the vision. Please keep working Steve and the team....

[mhschmieder]

Well, I await with interest, reports from various people about their workflows with VMS, as I can certainly see how quickly auditioning the sounds could help -- especially if the singer is getting a feed (usually along with a mild touch of reverb) to "inspire" their best performance.

I have concerns about the actual microphone, as I'd feel more comfortable with actual detailed specs, even though I work for a company that deliberately withholds certain specs and publishes other less-usual ones because we believe the typical specs are misleading or easily manipulated.

For mics vs. loudspeakers though, it's a bit more cut-and-dry, as details about the coverage pattern are pretty clear, and also if one is targeting exclusively vocals (another reason I'm happy to have the Peluso P12 hardware as I won't use it just on singers, but also on saxes/etc.), then a published frequency response is more telling than it is for many other applications (as long as proper contextual specs are provided for said curve).

[monkey man]

Well, what we do know, Mark, is that the response has to be wider than those of the mics modelled. Same thing for the dynamic range.

Also, the distortion levels must be lower too, or it'd be impossible to model mics' characteristics in this regard because it can only be added and not removed.

So, as a base-line, known-quantity starting point for Slate's modelling, by definition, it has to fit the bill, and I can therefore understand that specs aren't available, if indeed that's the case.

If the mic were to be offered as a measurement-style one or indeed as a stand-alone product, one would naturally expect full disclosure, but I'm forgiving in this case 'cause it's only one of 3 components in the modelling system, the other two obviously being the preamp, for which the same caveats apply IMHO, and the software itself.

[waxman]

The Peluso is an awesome mic. This VMS Slate system is just new technology at a dramatically reduced price. Knowing Slate various pre's will keep being added along with mics to the system. I love when disruption changes the playing field.

When I got my first state of the art studio it had an Otari MX80 and a Trident. People were skeptical. It wasn't an Studer and it wasn't a Neve, SSL or API. But the machine and console cost $50k not $250k. Then great projects started coming out of the studio and we were booked solid for years. I was making more net on less gross then my competitors. But the time came the Otari and Trident had to go. It gave way to a whole slew of digital crap...

My hope is go get to where I can again charge less and net more. The more gear like Slate and UAD puts out that reality is getting closer.

[mhschmieder]

Well, now that I think about it, I am guessing that Slate didn't publish the mic specs because he needs to keep a competitive advantage, as opposed to "hiding" something or not being transparent about whether the mic really is the best starting point (or perhaps might be subject to expensive upgrades every few years). I know that Slate runs an ethical business model, so he wouldn't take that risk of ticking off customers of such an expensive product by obsoletizing it every few years or so.

My own company builds specialty mics that we don't sell to the general public, and we hold onto those specs so tightly that I don't have access to them myself. They're locked in a safe.

Accurate mics that cover a full three-dimensional sphere of coverage are extremely non-trivial to design -- especially if meant to be used in a variety of placement contexts. So it may be that Slate designed the mic first, to make sure it was worth bothering with the emulations. I can see how it might have been a big endeavour and one he'd want to keep close to his chest.

[monkey man]

It's not a full 3D sphere, as you put it, either, Mark, so that might account somewhat for the price point.

It's a cardioid-response source that they'll use to model cardioid-only mics.

There'll possibly be a dynamic and also an electret-condenser source mic down the track, I think, although I read somewhere that it may be possible to model dynamics using the existing condenser mic. Given that off-axis response, saturation characteristics, harmonics, proximity effect and even plosive handling are modelled, I see no reason why dynamics couldn't be accounted for using the current base-line mic, unless I'm missing something obvious.

Speaking of future hardware additions, the current wedge-shaped pre will be offered as a stand-alone expansion for those keen to multi-mic or to not have to re-patch things, and there'll be a 2-channel, rack-mountable pre down the road too. I pressed Steven on this, and even 'though at one point I managed to get a "by the fall" estimate from him, he later moved the goal posts to an unspecified position, citing the unexpected workload in bringing the current line to market, along with all the other pies he and Fabrice have their fingers poked into.

I wanted the rack-mountable pre all along; wedges and whatnot don't have a place in my room, but I took the plunge anyway because Steven refused to even guess as to when the 2-channel version might appear, and besides that, I feared I'd miss out on the free mic pack that required my placing an order before August 31st.

Hopefully there might be something in all that for you.

[kassonica]

Maybe it's me, but the peluso I used (top end one with cert from the man himself) left me somewhat under impressed.

I recently used a geffell Um92 and was floored by just how good it was.

I'm curious though to hear the slate models, but will it stop me buying a high end valve mic.... err nope

[labman]

Well, I await with interest, reports from various people about their workflows with VMS, as I can certainly see how quickly auditioning the sounds could help -- especially if the singer is getting a feed (usually along with a mild touch of reverb) to "inspire" their best performance.

I await this too mh. How does it work for actual tracking? I hate the workflow of re-amping. From an arrangement point of view it seems to always mess up the piece. I dont mind on rare occasion moving away from the chosen mic strip in editing if need be, but I wanna hear what we are cutting when we are cutting it. People play and feel so much better.

So how does this work? Can we hear the full emulation on the way in without delay? Sorry if this is a simple question that should be obvious. Been out of the hardware loop.

[monkey man]

A couple of choices:

1) Talent monitors through the DAW, "zero-latency" emulation included, but with your sound card's throughput latency and that of the DAW added. Fine for those who can run 64-sample buffers or lower, and maybe for DP9 users at 128, but for some singers no latency is acceptable.

2) Talent monitors the raw (clean, unaffected preamp) signal via a CueMix-style "zero-latency" feed, either plain-vanilla-style or processed via a monitoring desk. I'd assumed all along that I could use the preamp's outputs separately, one for live monitoring and the other to feed an interface for recording. It turns out that even though I mentioned this several times in the GS thread, nobody, not even Steven, pointed out to me that this can't be done because a single op amp is used for the two outputs; it's either one or the other. This is why I'd otherwise have listed that as a third option, but alas, the interface's "zero-latency", internal-routing feature will have to be used instead.

3) Only a slight variation, but you'd of course have the option of monitoring from DP, emulation intact, whilst the talent does so according to option 2.

Yes, as alluded to in option 1, Slate claims zero latency for the emulation plugin itself.

As for your workflow concern about the re-amping paradigm, fear not, 'cause the preamp and mic contain no DSP. All emulation is carried out by the plugin, non-destructively, on the clean audio track, just as one might expect. One only needs to switch models from within the plug's interface in real time in order to make comparisons. Switch, adjust intensity slider, switch, adjust slider and so on. Easiest-ever, peasiest-ever option.

Hope this answers all your concerns, labman.