Slate VMS

[Slate]

Dear Skeptics:

Come to NAMM. Listen to the 47 vs the ML-1.

What exactly do you think is so magical about sound? Microphone manufacturers have come out with "recreations" of vintage mics and you don't batt an eyelash. How the hell can you reproduce specific dynamic frequency responses and saturations and phase anomalies when you are just using analog components.. most of which are not the same as the original?

Our concept is easy. Start by capturing all the source material with a high resolution microphone and preamp/converter. Then model the EXACT sound of vintage mics.. the EXACT dynamic frequency response, harmonic response, saturation response.. and manipulate the captured audio.

And based on what I see from the shootouts at Gearslutz... things are looking good.

If you want to marvel at technology, don't get overly impressed by some analog coloration algos (not that we don't bust our ass on it). Marvel at this:

http://www.kurzweilai.net/tiny-swimming-biobots-propelled-by-heart-cells-or-magnetic-fields

Cheers,
Steven

 

[FarBeyondMetal]

I thought this over a bit and I am sure this won't make me the most popular guy around here, but I think this is just an elaborate ploy to sell run of the mill china gear at a much higher markup than the rest of the market. Sure they have to produce the software, but once it's made it's made, and then you can use it to sell regular hardware at a premium price.

Now nail me to the cross

 

[Line666]

If you want to marvel at technology, don't get overly impressed by some analog coloration algos (not that we don't bust our ass on it). Marvel at this:

Steven, if this is not boundary stretching then I don't want to see simulation, I want to see something that will supercede analogue gear - not replicate it.

The Kemper has already proven that replication is an art that can be near flawless, how about we get past all this simulation of over half century old technology and actually produce something that is better than physical limitations and possibilities allow for.

I want to see guitar distortion that sounds better than any physical tube amplifier circuit will allow, I want to see compression that sounds better than an 1176. Mimicry is a talent, but it still is terribly limiting to truly creative possibilities.

 

[Max Morton]

One more thing, why is there a need for two mics(SDC and LDC) if you can emulate all kinds of microphones?

Brilliant!

In fact that's what I felt about the whole concept. You can emulate a ribbon or a blended subkick, but you need different mics.

Quite honestly, I feel a protest inside: spending around 2k bucks for a DIGITAL EMULATION. I'd rather buy a great mic and a great pre. I don't need it to sound "exactly like that old Neumann".

All that said, Steven is a great singer

 

[Slate]

You get one or two microphones, let's say you spend 2.5k for both of them, you get two sounds. You get VMS, you get 100 microphones and tons of preamps, and 100 different sounds and the chance to audition them on the source instantly without patching a cable.

If you like option one, do it. I like option two so I made VMS.

Cheers,
Steven

 

[HOFX]

Hey Slate, all this mic stuff is cool, but for now, less VMS, more VMR please.

Ok, now back on topic.

 

[Jordon]

I, for one, and pretty optimistic about this idea. If the whole tracking with compression thing can be sorted, then this may be something I look into pretty seriously.

I just don't think I can track vocals without my LA2A in the chain.


Also, I can't help but feel that the release video was a bit tongue-in-cheek.

 

[exoslime]

Sounds actually very interesting and i like the concepts about it, great stuff from steven again.

What i´m thinking about is,how those the already processed VMS tracks still takes EQ boosts?
Like we know, for example how well the Royer R121 Ribbon Mic takes high region EQ boosts and still sounds smooth and silky.

 

[SoundsLikeFog]

I think this is awesome. With drum samples, auto tune, midi instruments, guitar / preamp / tape / hardware emulations and plugins, we don't have to commit to anything before final print. And now, we don't even have to commit to our mic or pre choises when recording. How cool is that? I can't wait for the VMG (Virtual Music Generator *tm*), so we don't have to even commit to the music recorded! Finally we are free of music and can mix whatever how we want!

On a more serious note, I do think that Slate makes awesome products and I own most of his catalogue. But I can't help feeling that this thing is the event horizon in the decline of recording music. It can / could be an awesome tool, but "Therefore may he bring a long spoon, who shall sup with the Devil".

 

[anotherpaul]

I can't wait for the VMG (Virtual Music Generator *tm*)

I'm working on one at the moment.
But really, I'm waiting for a bass and guitar VSTi from Slate and maybe an amspim. Then Slate should hire David Cope (http://arts.ucsc.edu/programs/wacm/), so they can finally make a generic metalcore generator and flood the market with it's products to devalue the genre once and for all.

 

[stuglue]

not had chance to read all teh replies here so this may have already been said but surely these virtual mics are only static IR's of a mic at a particular distance from the amp? How does Slate handle, say an SM57 at different lengths from the singer? If they've only been captured, say 6 inch away from the singer then how accurate can they be if you want to emulate an SM57 only one inch from away? as we know the EQ curve changes and becomes more bassy the closer the mic is to the vocalist.
Also, as a workaround couldn't we just get the EQ curve of these mics and import them into an EQ plugin, seems like that could save you 2 grand

 

[exoslime]

a virtual cab simulator by slate digital would be killer
AND a Bass VSTi

 

[HOFX]

As I understand there's a Hi-Z input on this as well for recording your bass DI through a modelled preamp.

Steven, put a USB on this so it can be used as a stand alone audio interface and I will buy it.

 

[The StabbinCabin]

In theory, couldn't you just use your own flat response LDC/SDC and high-end pre(clean)/converter and use the software by itself and get almost identical results? I can't believe that there is any "true" transparent tool because it's all infinitely variable when you manufacture something and place it in a changing environment. Isn't that all relative? People are going to hear and perceive any one thing differently. Like how would that be any more transparent compared to lets say Grace with Burl or Millenia with Benchmark/Lavry/whatever? People are going to be in different environments with different means to make their judgement, too. The software is written to make the necessary adjustments to replicate the sound, so couldn't that alone be marketed for a similar pricepoint as VTM/VCC ect? Just a few thoughts.

Also- the greater opinion I've gathered is that your A/D is only as good as your D/A... Then your monitors, room, treatment and so on. Which that's not what comes along with this project package. So what's going in might be clean, but what is coming out from less than ideal converters still smearing it a tiny bit, right? I listened to the clip on Youtube, which doesn't do it justice at all. But isn't this whole "sound" really just Slate mics into Slate Pres with Slate conversion? The key really would be with the mics(maybe) and software then.

This seems like a good idea but idk- it's all variable. I'm not a gear buff or whatever anyway. I have shitty Presonus stuff. But I can see these points being brought up, if they haven't already on GS, haven't looked.

Thoughts?

 

[TheUnknown]

just my personal opinion, if this ends up being what he says it is:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7zf9JD-uvhg


all in good fun

I literally just pissed my pants...then I almost passed out

That was Seriously Funny.