Slate VMS - Nov 2016

    Got it yesterday.

    I use TLM103->Apollo->UA 1073 so I was comparing against that.
    I also have the Shure SM7B to compared a directly emulated VMS microphone to.

    Slate used "FG" in their VMS microphone names.
    The FG7 emulation of the SM7B is to my testing exact. Impressive. Not my favorite mic for my vocals, but spot on none-the-less.
    The FG67 was sonically similar but better than my chain. More presence.
    Many other mics competed favorable with my chain.

    Bottom line, this was a rather affordable expansion of my mic locker, allowing me to sell mic's by replacing them, to pay for itself.

    I like the UA1073 better than the FG73, but the VMS chains were better. The best part is pairing the outsider UA1073 worked well for most of the VMS mics. (not the FG47 on my vocals at all, tho)

    All in all, this seems like the Kemper to be what it claims to be. And the Mic/Preamp pairing remind me of the Amp/Cab discussions. The VMS must have a truely good dividing point to pair well with third-party preamp emulations.

    I'm glad I bought it. It's solid, and rather than complicate things, makes them simpler as I can leave one mic setup and be done with all the other booms.

    I only tested vocals, so I'll have to do an Acoustic audit to see which mics to sell/keep.

    Initially I was not-wowed, but after recording for a few hours, doing direct A/B comparisons, this is an impressive, thoroughly professional solution. I AM now very impressed with it. Slate hit a home run.

    Btw, having bought recently you get like 5 extra mics for free. I'm sure Slate will make many more, and there will be the temptation to buy them like we buy profiles. BUT I think it might be best to save that money in case there are problems with the product, the company goes away, other similar solutions come on line and you want variety, or just need to replace it one day as your computer needs changes and the newest products are different.

    I've been taming this thing a bit. I'm not used to Microphone->Digital so I was having gain staging problems.

    I'm used to the LA-610. Also, going straight into the Apollo Twin was rather easy and I rarely popped to 0dB unless I tried.

    But the VMS preamp -> Apollo Twin is hitting 0dB easily (the Twin has no gain set, is on Line input from VMS on a TPS cord, no plugins)

    I'm setting it to hit around -15dB so I don't spike to 0dB but it's a bitch to tame. I was wondering if a hardware limiter in-between would be easier, OR if a plugin in the interface of the Apollo would work (haven't tried that believe it or not)

    That said, the tones easily surpass the Neumann TLM 103 but have it's similar tone (if you can call it the "Neumann" tone, which I know isn't a U87, but you get my point)

    The variety is excellent. I'm not a total fan of the FG73 or slates Neve EQ, preferring the UA 1073. The Slate makes the vocals a bit too brittle, but it maybe be my hot signal as when I go in much lower (-18dB) I get a much better response out of the plugins. So I think Slates plugins don't like too hot a signal, so I'm causing the problem I think)

    That said, I AM going to sell my microphones and only keep one. Fantastic product. I hope it lasts. It's a harbinger of great things to come for microphone technology. Not equal to the Kemper, but it's 1st cousin.

    Hey db, Steven explicitly states many times in the GS thread that the emus don't like to be hit hard, or even "normally". Your issue will be sorted, as you've already discovered, by lowering the input to the emu module by 10 or 12 db. He recommends that those who record hot / hottish place a trim plugin before the VMS one and dial the signal back there.

    Yeah, you'd think a limiter would help, but also that it'd affect the mic emus. I'll have the same problem, I imagine, 'cause I don't plan to use anything in between the pre and the interface. All I can suggest is that we try to employ every mic-working technique we can think of in order to minimise the dynamic range of our voices whilst laying down takes, and also to perhaps not be afraid to dial the gain back sufficiently in order to guarantee no overs.

    Lastly, do you think you could add some feedback to the original thread you started on the VMS? It would be ideal IMHO to keep it all together in one place for the sake of those who're researching / considering it. Just a thought, mate. Here 'tis:

    Slate VMS 2016

    Yeah, gain staging is paramount with these "analogue emulations"! Hitting -18 dbfs is usually akin to hitting zero on a console/the old analogue realm.

    Anyhoo, the VMS manual gives some pointers as to how hard you should hit the mic emulation plugins for proper tone. A trim plugin is your friend, first in the VMR plugin (before the mic emulations).

    Where is the gain on your VMS one box set at? Can't you just dial that back and get what you want?

    I think db was concerned 'cause he'd already dialled it back appreciably, Michael, "hitting around -15dB" and still finding it "hard to tame". I read his question as seeking a solution better than lowering the gain to this extent.

    Of course, db, with 24-bit conversion and the super-quiet Slate pre, there's no reason to worry, mate. I'd just dial it back as far as it takes in order for you to not peak above, say, -10 to -6db if possible. Personally, I wouldn't want to go anywhere near zero.

    Back in the 90's I was using the hardware-based Ensoniq Paris system as my DAW. At the time, it was the only other near-zero latency DAW besides ProTools. Many people swore up and down that the Paris system sounded better and was easier to mix on than other DAWs. Obviously this sparked a lot of controversy in various forums. But after the system was discontinued, the code was released to a small group of users who found out that all the Paris meters were offset upwards by 10dBFS so you recorded and mixed everything at lower levels than what you saw. During mixdown/rendering, 10dB were added back so the resulting mix matched the meters. Brilliant, especially for the time when were all still thought in analog terms.

    I'm a big fan of not hitting it too hard. That's what 24 bit recording is for. Don't be afraid to dial down more. :thumbup:

    I hate emojis, but I hate being misunderstood more. :)

    Quote from Klappy

    Back in the 90's I was using the hardware-based Ensoniq Paris system as my DAW. At the time, it was the only other near-zero latency DAW besides ProTools. Many people swore up and down that the Paris system sounded better and was easier to mix on than other DAWs. Obviously this sparked a lot of controversy in various forums. But after the system was discontinued, the code was released to a small group of users who found out that all the Paris meters were offset upwards by 10dBFS so you recorded and mixed everything at lower levels than what you saw. During mixdown/rendering, 10dB were added back so the resulting mix matched the meters. Brilliant, especially for the time when were all still thought in analog terms.

    I'm a big fan of not hitting it too hard. That's what 24 bit recording is for. Don't be afraid to dial down more. :thumbup:

    Nice story! :)

    Quote from Klappy

    Back in the 90's I was using the hardware-based Ensoniq Paris system as my DAW... Many people swore up and down that the Paris system sounded better and was easier to mix on than other DAWs... the Paris meters were offset upwards by 10dBFS so you recorded and mixed everything at lower levels than what you saw... Brilliant, especially for the time when were all still thought in analog terms.

    I'm a big fan of not hitting it too hard. That's what 24 bit recording is for. Don't be afraid to dial down more. :thumbup:

    I dreamed about Paris (literally), and spec'd out a system for myself a number of times, but could never quite get there funding-wise; I had those awesome black-background flyers all over the house! I was literally obsessed with it and convinced it would have been my ticket to success. I heard the creamy tones many times, Klappy. It really was a warm-sounding system IMHO. Dammit, it sounded like tape to me!

    I remember Roger saying that, when discussing how much work went into its design, even the colour scheme and shading were fine-tuned for minimal eyestrain.

    Anyway, here's the clincher, which you'd no doubt be aware of: It was only 16 bit ***. So, even in the "low-res" days of 16 bit, it still proved to be a worthwhile practice to lower recording levels.

    Hopefully being reminded of this allays any fears you might've had of lowering, even further, your preamp gain, db!

    *** Klappy kindly reminded me that the A/D conversion wasn't 16bit, but rather 20 and 24-bit.

    Actually, 30ips and Dolby SR produced incredible figures even back in the '80s, Michael.

    I'll think you'll find they were better than or in the same ballpark as real-world 16-bit systems, none of which achieved the theoretical 96dB dynamic range due to physical component limitations.

    Quote from Monkey_Man

    Actually, 30ips and Dolby SR produced incredible figures even back in the '80s, Michael.

    I'll think you'll find they were better than or in the same ballpark as real-world 16-bit systems, none of which achieved the theoretical 96dB dynamic range due to physical component limitations.

    I actually saw something about that dolby thing :) If I recall correctly (and the source is reliable), it had (has?) a SNR of 90 dB, which is just a smidgen below 16 bit I think.

    I think you are absolutely correct - back then I don't doubt that the best tape beat the best digital converters. I think that's probably not the case anymore, though?

    Quote from Monkey_Man

    Anyway, here's the clincher, which you'd no doubt be aware of: It was only 16 bit. So, even in the "low-res" days of 16 bit, it still proved to be a worthwhile practice to lower recording levels.

    I loved my Paris system, but unfortunately they never kept up with the times or with user requests. The never did any real full featured Midi sequencer because that wasn't their vision, but that's what everybody wanted. Towards the end, there was outright hostility between the users and the company on their forum. (Hint, Kemper, make an editor!). Also it was definitely a 24 bit system. But the earlier interfaces, the IF2 and IF442 were 20 bit. The later MEC interface and software were all 24 bit. I can't remember what the internal processing word-length was though, 24, 32 or 32 float, but it definitely wasn't 16. I only abandoned the system when Cubase started becoming irresistible with virtual instruments and advanced editing that Paris didn't have. For a while I had two PC's running both in sync, but that got old quick.

    I hate emojis, but I hate being misunderstood more. :)

    Ahh... thank you for the clarification, Klappy! It's all coming back to me now; I was looking at 20-bit interfaces but my ADAT was 16 - I think that's where the confusion came from.

    Quote from Michael_dk

    I actually saw something about that dolby thing :) If I recall correctly (and the source is reliable), it had (has?) a SNR of 90 dB, which is just a smidgen below 16 bit I think.
    I think you are absolutely correct - back then I don't doubt that the best tape beat the best digital converters. I think that's probably not the case anymore, though?

    Correct, Michael. SR's dynamic range obviously depends on the machine it's installed on and the noise levels, calibration, tape speed, type and so on. You could pull 25dB over and above what your machine was capable of.

    In my two AE Dips I did, one in 1988 and the other in '98, I got to hear the best machines set up with SR at Metropolis and the like, and I can tell you that they're still my reference for what good sound is. Unbelievable; they made even 20-bit ADATs and DAT mastering decks sound like toys, man. Seriously.

    As for today, it's tough to say. I'd have to be able to A/B the same mixes on both systems, and that ain't gonna happen unless I have a huge hittoon or two. LOL

    Anyway, the bottom line is that db needn't worry about lowering his input levels with the VMS.

    So getting back to the modeling mic stuff... ;)

    db, Have you tried out the Townsend mic models yet that came with the latest UAD 9.0 software release yet? I'm curious how they compare to the SS stuff. The plug-in is designed to work with their proprietary mic, but you can download sample audio from Townsend to play around with.

    http://townsendlabs.com/

    Also, I'm curious how their models would work on the Slate mic, since they are both designed to be neutral and flat.

    I hate emojis, but I hate being misunderstood more. :)

    No, haven't compared that.

    I have compared to my mic locker and I have to say, the VMS is a winner there. Ease of mind selling my stuff up to the TLM 103.

    Not only get a great tone, and often better, but the variety to work with. But I have to tame this input since i'm used to a different pathway.

    I never thought of a trim before the VMS for some reason. I typically use a trim to regular plugins, but for some reason it didn't make sense mentally to do this with the VMS because I was thinking the pathway started WITH the VMS mic plugin.

    Side Note:

    I was playing with Slate's everything bundle mix session. On the Bass track, they had like 6 Slate plugins. I was playing around and when you shut off 5 of them, there was almost audibly no different. But the Revival plugin was doing 95% of the difference. And it's the FREE plugin!

    It shows what EQ can do. You can forego all that analog, tape, console emulation crap and just dial in the right top and bottom end and make a bass track stand out perfectly. and with a free plugin. It's an eye opener for anyone pining to drop loads for a Black Friday "deal" when you can probably just use your DAW plugins if you know how to use them well. The Revival just makes it "for dummies", but it's technically all there.

    Since I don't own any Omni mics, I was thinking of just a stereo blend for acoustic. But both my acoustics have built-in, sooo. Maybe I'll sell them all. (also, they are 1" and I should really have 1/2" for acoustic)

    Slate was supposed to come out with a 1" and a 1/2" initially (NAMM 2014 i think)

    But selling the 103 is a no-brainer. Besides, never was the biggest fan for lead vocals, only backups.

    Thanks bud. I really appreciate that feedback(!), 'cause I know I'll be scratching my head when faced with the same dilemma soon.

    I've coveted my 103 since the day they came out and only used it once to record my brother. It lives with a sock stuffed with brown rice in its cherry box, and it's the original run of the model, which many say sounds better than the newer one which started perhaps 3->5 years in, I believe. Yes, it's been in that box in a drawer for, like, 15+ years, I reckon. Feels at least that long.

    Again, thank you, bud! When I start stressin' about it, I'll remember what you said. ;)