Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 2, 2016 17:21:41 GMT -6
I should have VMS here in a couple days. I'm skeptical but curious enough that I need to try it out for myself. You've banged heads with Slate a bit on the other forum - keep us updated as I know you're not a disciple yet so trust your judgement on this
|
|
|
Post by ragan on Nov 2, 2016 18:35:32 GMT -6
I should have VMS here in a couple days. I'm skeptical but curious enough that I need to try it out for myself. You've banged heads with Slate a bit on the other forum - keep us updated as I know you're not a disciple yet so trust your judgement on this Heheh. Yes I have. I'll give it an honest, thorough trial and I'll post clips on RGO. I mean, if I actually could have close approximations of wonderful mics and pres for $1k, I'd be jumping for joy. I'm just not generally sold on any software emulations, despite having spent a fortune on them : / But I want to try it for myself and see.
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Nov 3, 2016 10:23:04 GMT -6
Perhaps. But blind ABX tests are not what runs a session. If I put a singer up in front of a beautifully restored 67 / 47 / c12 I get a different respect and performance from them as compared to what I get from them with a chinese mic, clone or emulation software. Same thing with a vintage Rhodes, or a classic Martin guitar. We are human beings, not robots. We respond positively to tools that inspire us. Absolutely. And if you've got clients to impress/coax-good-tracks-out-of, that's a reasonable consideration. If you just want the sonics, it's another ballgame. But again, I'm not a believer (in the sonics) at this point. But ABX is not a valid implement for such matters - the way ABX tests aqre conducted biases the result. Most people cannot discern differences in a typical ABX that become quite clear in the course of using the gear in question - it's a matter of how the very subtle differences in sonics affect performance, and ABX is woefully unsuited for determining that, as it really only tests the end user experience.
|
|
|
Post by ragan on Nov 3, 2016 10:52:58 GMT -6
Absolutely. And if you've got clients to impress/coax-good-tracks-out-of, that's a reasonable consideration. If you just want the sonics, it's another ballgame. But again, I'm not a believer (in the sonics) at this point. But ABX is not a valid implement for such matters - the way ABX tests aqre conducted biases the result. Most people cannot discern differences in a typical ABX that become quite clear in the course of using the gear in question - it's a matter of how the very subtle differences in sonics affect performance, and ABX is woefully unsuited for determining that, as it really only tests the end user experience. Maybe. ABX is still extremely useful if differences are subtle. Practical use has just as much bias if not more. Expectation bias is more powerful than anything ABX has to offer. What bias are you under the impression ABX has inherent to it?
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Nov 3, 2016 11:17:20 GMT -6
But ABX is not a valid implement for such matters - the way ABX tests aqre conducted biases the result. Most people cannot discern differences in a typical ABX that become quite clear in the course of using the gear in question - it's a matter of how the very subtle differences in sonics affect performance, and ABX is woefully unsuited for determining that, as it really only tests the end user experience. Maybe. ABX is still extremely useful if differences are subtle. Practical use has just as much bias if not more. Expectation bias is more powerful than anything ABX has to offer. What bias are you under the impression ABX has inherent to it? People don't listen the same way in an ABX test as they do when they're working in a creative environment. This has been born out by tests of brain activity. Listening in different circumstances show different patterns of activity, therefore the brain processes auditory information in different ways depending on conditions/circumstances.
Furthermore, an ABX test causes a significant number of subjects to second guess themselves.
Also, I believe "expectation bias" is greatly overstated, as shown by the number of people who go into a test of a given device strongly disposed to regard it favorably who end up disliking it.
|
|
|
Post by ragan on Nov 3, 2016 11:26:36 GMT -6
Maybe. ABX is still extremely useful if differences are subtle. Practical use has just as much bias if not more. Expectation bias is more powerful than anything ABX has to offer. What bias are you under the impression ABX has inherent to it? People don't listen the same way in an ABX test as they do when they're working in a creative environment. This has been born out by tests of brain activity. Listening in different circumstances show different patterns of activity, therefore the brain processes auditory information in different ways depending on conditions/circumstances.
Furthermore, an ABX test causes a significant number of subjects to second guess themselves.
Also, I believe "expectation bias" is greatly overstated, as shown by the number of people who go into a test of a given device strongly disposed to regard it favorably who end up disliking it.
I see. Good points.
|
|
|
Post by Guitar on Nov 3, 2016 11:38:59 GMT -6
I watched the video, and I have to say, at this point I am not convinced. I thought in every case the original microphone sounded somewhat to much better than the VMS. The VMS just sounds more bland. At the end of the video though they sort of started referring to it as a "cheap mic" and by that criteria, of it's price point, it might be a good value in that price range.
|
|
|
Post by ragan on Nov 3, 2016 11:43:44 GMT -6
I watched the video, and I have to say, at this point I am not convinced. I thought in every case the original microphone sounded somewhat to much better than the VMS. The VMS just sounds more bland. At the end of the video though they sort of started referring to it as a "cheap mic" and by that criteria, of it's price point, it might be a good value in that price range. You must mean the SOS one, not the one at the top of this thread?
|
|
|
Post by Guitar on Nov 3, 2016 17:10:29 GMT -6
I watched the video, and I have to say, at this point I am not convinced. I thought in every case the original microphone sounded somewhat to much better than the VMS. The VMS just sounds more bland. At the end of the video though they sort of started referring to it as a "cheap mic" and by that criteria, of it's price point, it might be a good value in that price range. You must mean the SOS one, not the one at the top of this thread? Oops, yes indeed. I'll have to watch the one at the top of this thread too.
|
|
|
Post by ragan on Nov 3, 2016 17:14:58 GMT -6
You must mean the SOS one, not the one at the top of this thread? Oops, yes indeed. I'll have to watch the one at the top of this thread too. Yeah I agree about the SOS shootout. I don't care what Steven says about "poorly maintained rental mics" or blah blah blah, the real mics sounded better to me, and not just a frequency response thing. Just better. The shootout in this thread is worlds closer. Steven is good at matching them. Using nulls and analyzers to get them extremely close. Which is in no way cheating or anything. If those tones can be coaxed out one way or another, I'm interested.
|
|
|
Post by henge on Nov 8, 2016 12:48:09 GMT -6
So ragan what are your impressions of VMS. I'm still loving it!;-)
|
|
|
Post by ragan on Nov 8, 2016 13:00:28 GMT -6
So ragan what are your impressions of VMS. I'm still loving it!;-) I'm trying to really put it through its paces before really deciding what I think. Such a different animal/workflow than I'm used to. I'm going to spend a few more days with it and then do some comparisons. I'll post them.
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Nov 10, 2016 21:23:15 GMT -6
Thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by ragan on Nov 11, 2016 0:19:39 GMT -6
I've been swamped. Heading out of town for the weekend too. I'll do some samples next week. This far there have been a few tones that impressed me and a few that didn't. I'll dig in more as soon as I get more time.
|
|
|
Post by Vincent R. on Nov 13, 2016 23:22:00 GMT -6
I just got the Slate VMS. I also have a number or tribute style microphones in my locker. The Slate VMS needs more than just the microphone emulation to get it "right." If you play with the intensity, add either one of their preamps, or the VCC, or sometimes I use my UAD channel strips, instead of the Slate Preamps (I don't generally use a 1073 or V76 pre for the work I do), then you can really get the microphones to feel close. This is true of most of my tribute microphones when I test them against the VMS.
I'm working on a small project currently with a Broadway style vocalist. I'm trying to cut some cost for my client, so we haven't been spending a lot of time figuring out mics for his guest artists, and so far my guesses had been on the money. I was working with a very talented soprano on Monday and the mic I chose wasn't working, and my AA CM251 mic wasn't warmed up and ready to go. I grabbed my VMS and made a wonderful recording with the FG251. It's an excellent tool to have around the studio.
|
|
|
Post by ChaseUTB on Nov 14, 2016 8:51:21 GMT -6
Welcome to Real Gear Online Forums Vincent R. Thank you for adding your personal experience with said product. What other Mics doh you use daily? What other Mics have you shot out with the VMS? That is the type of feedback we all appreciate here on the forum! Please keep us posted with more updates and experiences with the Slate VMS 💯
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Nov 14, 2016 11:35:30 GMT -6
I just got the Slate VMS. I also have a number or tribute style microphones in my locker. The Slate VMS needs more than just the microphone emulation to get it "right." If you play with the intensity, add either one of their preamps, or the VCC, or sometimes I use my UAD channel strips, instead of the Slate Preamps (I don't generally use a 1073 or V76 pre for the work I do), then you can really get the microphones to feel close. This is true of most of my tribute microphones when I test them against the VMS. I'm working on a small project currently with a Broadway style vocalist. I'm trying to cut some cost for my client, so we haven't been spending a lot of time figuring out mics for his guest artists, and so far my guesses had been on the money. I was working with a very talented soprano on Monday and the mic I chose wasn't working, and my AA CM251 mic wasn't warmed up and ready to go. I grabbed my VMS and made a wonderful recording with the FG251. It's an excellent tool to have around the studio. Welcome!
|
|
|
Post by Vincent R. on Nov 14, 2016 15:20:01 GMT -6
Thanks John. You're one of the reasons I'm here. I really enjoyed much of what you had put out there on another forum.
|
|
|
Post by Vincent R. on Nov 14, 2016 15:26:50 GMT -6
Welcome to Real Gear Online Forums Vincent R. Thank you for adding your personal experience with said product. What other Mics doh you use daily? What other Mics have you shot out with the VMS? That is the type of feedback we all appreciate here on the forum! Please keep us posted with more updates and experiences with the Slate VMS 💯 Hello ChaseUTB, Thanks. I have a number of mics in my locker and am hoping to do a shoot out between them and the VMS. Here is a list of my tribute mics: -Peluso 2247SE -Advanced Audio CM251 -Advanced Audio CM12SE (with custom Vintage Mod. Lets me toggle between a more modern C12 sound and a vintage sound) -Advanced Audio CM67SE (with custom Vintage Mod. Lets me toggle between an M269 like sound and the stock U67 sound) Also have a Neumann U87AI. I posted a new thread with a shoot out I did a few months ago that is on YouTube. Feel free to check it out. A little about me, I'm a professional entertainer and studio vocalist. Most of my experience with these mics is with vocals, but it still gives me a nice perspective.
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Nov 14, 2016 15:47:32 GMT -6
Thanks John. You're one of the reasons I'm here. I really enjoyed much of what you had put out there on another forum. Thanks! Although I haven't posted there in three years lol
|
|
|
Post by ragan on Nov 16, 2016 1:31:52 GMT -6
Here's a comparison between the Slate VMS FG-67 and the 3U Audio GZ67Fet. The VMS 67 is using the VMS 1073 and the GZ67Fet is going through a Heritage DMA-73.
https%3A//soundcloud.com/fir_out/3u-audio-gz67fet-vs-vms-fg-67-vocal
https%3A//soundcloud.com/fir_out/vms-67-vs-gz67-vocal
|
|
|
Post by wiz on Nov 16, 2016 1:47:56 GMT -6
Both sound really good.
Can you post the other VMS mics like 251 and 47 with that take please when you have a chance... thats where the beauty of this thing will lie.. post tracking.
What was it like, as a vocalist singing through the slate system in terms of latency and vibe, compared to the GZ and real pre?
thats the other big consideration..
cheers
Wiz
|
|
|
Post by ragan on Nov 16, 2016 2:02:25 GMT -6
Here are just those acoustic guitars.
https%3A//soundcloud.com/fir_out/gz67-acoustics
https%3A//soundcloud.com/fir_out/vms-fg67-vs-gz67fet-acoustics
|
|
|
Post by ragan on Nov 16, 2016 2:09:49 GMT -6
Both sound really good. Can you post the other VMS mics like 251 and 47 with that take please when you have a chance... thats where the beauty of this thing will lie.. post tracking. What was it like, as a vocalist singing through the slate system in terms of latency and vibe, compared to the GZ and real pre? thats the other big consideration.. cheers Wiz Yeah I can definitely do that. It'll be tomorrow though. As far as the experience of it, if I go down to 64 buffer, I can get the PT monitoring to almost feel good. If I couldn't AB between the UAD Console app and the DAW monitoring, I'd probably be satisfied with it. But as it is, I just monitor through Console because it's way more immediate. Also, 64 buffer precludes things on some people's systems, resource wise. And that all assumes you don't have any plugin that's introducing even a spec of latency. For me, it's analog or something like UAD Console for monitoring.
|
|
|
Post by Vincent R. on Nov 16, 2016 5:39:47 GMT -6
As far as the experience of it, if I go down to 64 buffer, I can get the PT monitoring to almost feel good. If I couldn't AB between the UAD Console app and the DAW monitoring, I'd probably be satisfied with it. But as it is, I just monitor through Console because it's way more immediate. Also, 64 buffer precludes things on some people's systems, resource wise. And that all assumes you don't have any plugin that's introducing even a spec of latency. For me, it's analog or something like UAD Console for monitoring. I agree. I usually just monitor it through my Apollo and add the emulation in post afterward. I have a dual core, so there are pops and other artifacts if I turn my buffer down to 64. I think both of these sound good, but one is a FET 67 and the other an emulation of a modded 67, so they sound different. The FG67 was the most disappointing emulation when I first heard it, because it was marketed as a U67 Emu, but is really bright in comparison. Steven Slate later advised that the U67 being emulated had had it's filters removed.
|
|