I.I.T: Slate Digital - VBC - FG GREY

[Wishx]

http://www.gearevu.com/slate-digital-vbc-fg-grey/

 

[Machinated]

completely pointless in the sense that these graphs don't make something sound good or bad. they might help explain certain aspects, but the plugin could create the same graphs and be completely useless.

the plugin sounds fantastic, but I know that having tried it out for myself in a real life situation. not from analysing graphs.

mixing is all about what you hear, not what you see.

 

[Wishx]

completely pointless in the sense that these graphs don't make something sound good or bad. they might help explain certain aspects, but the plugin could create the same graphs and be completely useless.

the plugin sounds fantastic, but I know that having tried it out for myself in a real life situation. not from analysing graphs.

mixing is all about what you hear, not what you see.

''but the plugin could create the same graphs and be completely useless''.That is not possible, due to what you like in this plugin is exactly what you see here.

edit: This is lireraly what it does to your sound, any sound.

 

[Machinated]

not at all, its how you use it with your work, the parameters available, how your decisions react to the way it sounds, so you adjust it to where you want it to be.

this graph shows things that the slate team probably analysed in WAY more detail. its only a tiny part of the equation that those interested in creating music shouldn't even have to worry about.

 

[Wishx]

not at all, its how you use it with your work, the parameters available, how your decisions react to the way it sounds, so you adjust it to where you want it to be.

this graph shows things that the slate team probably analysed in WAY more detail. its only a tiny part of the equation that those interested in creating music shouldn't even have to worry about.

Maybe you should read the whole thread again.

 

[Machinated]

you're trying to "validate" a plugin with graphs and test tones.

I can guarantee you now that the slate team went to WAY more trouble than running some test tones to ensure the plugin is where they wanted it to be. and I bet they still made compromises too.

and you know what? the only way you can validate any kind of equipment is by how it performs in real life situations.

 

[joelplagues]

This isn't going to help sell a plug in to me or is going to prove if one is better or not in terms of analogue authenticity. That's like ranking delay pedals that call themselves analogue or digital and saying the analogue is better without hearing it...or caring if it's true bypass or not when you are only using one pedal anyway.

The idea of explaining these graphs and how things would look for an analogue replica is great and all but I don't think you should compare plugs ins with it in various posts. The knowledge on it's own is cool for maybe someone wanting to get into plugin building but that's about it. Till I decide I want to do that, I'll keep picking plugins with my ears.

 

[Wishx]

This isn't going to help sell a plug in to me or is going to prove if one is better or not in terms of analogue authenticity. That's like ranking delay pedals that call themselves analogue or digital and saying the analogue is better without hearing it...or caring if it's true bypass or not when you are only using one pedal anyway.

The idea of explaining these graphs and how things would look for an analogue replica is great and all but I don't think you should compare plugs ins with it in various posts. The knowledge on it's own is cool for maybe someone wanting to get into plugin building but that's about it. Till I decide I want to do that, I'll keep picking plugins with my ears.

Hi i totaly get what your are saying, the reason for this thread was to validate the all so common ''analogue'' claim. thats all realy. Please note that theres no little analogue or more. it either is or not, thats what I was trying to explain in detail.

 

[joelplagues]

Hi i totaly get what your are saying, the reason for this thread was to validate the all so common ''analogue'' claim. thats all realy. Please note that theres no little analogue or more. it either is or not, thats what I was trying to explain in detail.

I think the problem was that your "is it true" title just came across as a huge myth debunking thread that may cause a scandal or attempt to shock us when it's just a simple post and actually contains no comparisons to analogue equipment either. I trust what you are saying but if anyone actually cares whether a PLUGIN(not a piece of analogue equipment) is a true replica or not they might like some form of comparison and definitely one allowing them to use their ears with the supporting data.

 

[Wishx]

I think the problem was that your "is it true" title just came across as a huge myth debunking thread that may cause a scandal or attempt to shock us when it's just a simple post and actually contains no comparisons to analogue equipment either. I trust what you are saying but if anyone actually cares whether a PLUGIN(not a piece of analogue equipment) is a true replica or not they might like some form of comparison and definitely one allowing them to use their ears with the supporting data.

Hi this is not a comparison thread, nor something similar. Yet analogue modeling has a validity threshold, after that threshold is reached we can cofidetly expect analogue like behaviour, this isn't if its modeled good or bad or up to the 4k, its a thread if its realy modeled in all aspects of analogue
I've seen so many plugins from diferent companies claim analogue, modeling a device partialy or even worse when the analogue button is only adding noise

 

[jipchen]

I think this is interesting. Trusting in other engineer's opinions or even your own opinion is often (I would even say mostly) based on a number of biases. Our brains (and thus, ears) are fooled by marketing campaigns, our expectations towards a specific plugin/developer/piece of gear, statements/opitions we heard from established audio-engineers, the design and optics, the price, even the name ("analog xyz" will probably be recieved as better than just "plugin xyz").
So just trusting what you think sounds better will not be an accurate image of the real situation. The only way to come even close to a relatively objective setting is a blind ABX test. The vast majority of the AE population is not testing plugins/gear in a real blind ABX test, either because they don't know how it's done correctly or because they aren't aware / don't care. If you expect a plugin to sound amazing and you try it out, it most probably will sound amazing to you, even if it's actually shit.

Of course this sort of analysis can't replace a shootout, a trial version, or a blind ABX comparison - but it can point out hollow marketing phrases, and give you a rough idea of the technical side of how it works.. which I find interesting. Of course it doesn't say anything about 1) a plugin sounds good 2) you will get use out of the plugin, but that was never the point (I think). If a shitty analogue piece of gear is accurately modeled, it will score well in this kind of analysis but will still sound like crap. Take it for what it is.

 

[FarBeyondMetal]

I don't know much about quantifying a plugins worth through graphs and tests, but it seems like this would all make more sense if there was comparisons between actual hardware, VBC, and a plugin that claims to be "analogue" but isn't.

 

[Wishx]

I think this is interesting. Trusting in other engineer's opinions or even your own opinion is often (I would even say mostly) based on a number of biases. Our brains and ears are fooled by marketing campaigns, our expectations towards a specific plugin/developer/piece of gear, statements/opitions we heard from established audio-engineers, the design and optics, the price, even the name ("analog xyz" will probably be recieved as better than just "plugin xyz").
So just trusting what you think sounds better will not be an accurate image of the real situation. The only way to come even close to a relatively objective setting is a blind ABX test.
The vast majority of the AE population is not testing plugins/gear in a real blind ABX test, either because they don't know how it's done correctly or because they aren't aware / don't care.

Of course this sort of analysis can't replace a shootout, a trial version, or a blind ABX comparison - but it can point out hollow marketing phrases, and give you a rough idea of the technical side of how it works.. which I find interesting. Of course it doesn't say anything about 1) a plugin sounds good 2) you will get use out of the plugin, but that was never the point (I think). If a shitty analogue piece of gear is accurately modeled, it will score well in this kind of analysis but will still sound like crap. Take it for what it is.

Yes, ABX comparisons are usualy easier performed, please note though that the 'technical' side can really give you some insight into things like character! wich for me is fascinating, one of the reasons I love doing it! so all I did was to provide you some input that maybe the average user may find difficult to find and understand.

 

[Wishx]

I don't know much about quantifying a plugins worth through graphs and tests, but it seems like this would all make more sense if there was comparisons between actual hardware, VBC, and a plugin that claims to be "analogue" but isn't.

I could do that, it takes more time though.

 

[Wishx]

I think this is interesting. Trusting in other engineer's opinions or even your own opinion is often (I would even say mostly) based on a number of biases. Our brains (and thus, ears) are fooled by marketing campaigns, our expectations towards a specific plugin/developer/piece of gear, statements/opitions we heard from established audio-engineers, the design and optics, the price, even the name ("analog xyz" will probably be recieved as better than just "plugin xyz").
So just trusting what you think sounds better will not be an accurate image of the real situation. The only way to come even close to a relatively objective setting is a blind ABX test. The vast majority of the AE population is not testing plugins/gear in a real blind ABX test, either because they don't know how it's done correctly or because they aren't aware / don't care. If you expect a plugin to sound amazing and you try it out, it most probably will sound amazing to you, even if it's actually shit.

Of course this sort of analysis can't replace a shootout, a trial version, or a blind ABX comparison - but it can point out hollow marketing phrases, and give you a rough idea of the technical side of how it works.. which I find interesting. Of course it doesn't say anything about 1) a plugin sounds good 2) you will get use out of the plugin, but that was never the point (I think). If a shitty analogue piece of gear is accurately modeled, it will score well in this kind of analysis but will still sound like crap. Take it for what it is.

Ah adding that indeed the logic of the crapy gear to be modeled will score and all. But inside the graphs will look way different and can really indicate the ''crapiness element'' ! :zombie:

 

[heshian46]

Poor guy, did all that work to put this post together (that personally I thought was well thought out with good data), and he gets shat on for it.

 

[jipchen]

Yes, ABX comparisons are usualy easier performed, please note though that the 'technical' side can really give you some insight into things like character! wich for me is fascinating, one of the reasons I love doing it! so all I did was to provide you some input that maybe the average user may find difficult to find and understand.

Yes, I am not trying to discredit your thread - as I said I think it's interesting. Just pointing out to others who say "it doesn't make sense / it's no help" that of course it will ultimately not be an indicator of how useful a plugin is or if they will like it, but it will still be interesting and perhaps help with the decision which plugin to get.

Ah adding that indeed the logic of the crapy gear to be modeled will score and all. But inside the graphs will look way different and can really indicate the ''crapiness element'' ! :zombie:

Good point. I don't think I could really interpret a graph of a correctly-modelled-but-still-crappy-plugin, but if you point out how to look at the graphs and read them like you did in this example, it could work.

 

[Wishx]

Yes, I am not trying to discredit your thread - as I said I think it's interesting. Just pointing out to others who say "it doesn't make sense / it's no help" that of course it will ultimately not be an indicator of how useful a plugin is or if they will like it, but it will still be interesting and perhaps help with the decision which plugin to get.

that of course it will ultimately not be an indicator of how useful a plugin is or if they will like it, but it will still be interesting and perhaps help with the decision which plugin to get

Yes exactly

 

[Wishx]

Poor guy, did all that work to put this post together (that personally I thought was well thought out with good data), and he gets shat on for it.

haha so you're buying the next round of beers I take it ?
I'm glad you like the thread!

 

[AudioGeekZine]

It's somewhat interesting to see what the plugin is doing.
would you mind doing some graphs of a non-emulation compressor such as Reacomp? Reacomp is extremely flexible so if you can match the compression character it would be cool to compare just the frequency response and THD, if it even matters.