|
|
Post by ChaseUTB on Nov 20, 2016 19:16:14 GMT -6
Love the way you think on these topics man! Great way of looking at this deal, which it absolutely is.. Actually, that's exactly how Slate asked us to think. From the email: For those loyal customers that bought every Slate Digital plugin before the subscription came out, it really doesn't seem like such a deal. I spent $821 on plugs and I get to save $30 on a 1-year subscription, plus I get a permanent license for a plugin I don't need. I would have preferred something like a 50% credit for pre-subscription purchases, usable towards subscription fees. Yes I do feel for the early Slate adopters, they are seeing their plugin purchase devalued daily! Hey at least Slate constantly tries to improve his SW and it appears the sub $ is helping new developments release quicker than a couple years ago when it was a year to two for a Slate plugin release. People here on RGO are raving about VCC 2.0 and I believe the subscription will help some of his other plugs get the 2.0 treatment. I don't own any Slate plugs  The delay looks bad ass, the email I got said it was $99 right now but will go up to $149. |
|
|
|
Post by levon on Nov 21, 2016 0:04:48 GMT -6
I got no email and I own VCC, VTM, Trigger and Drums Platinum... Maybe it's for the better, I don't have money to spend on plugins. Saving up for some more hardware...
|
|
|
|
Post by swurveman on Nov 21, 2016 11:24:48 GMT -6
I got a reply from Slate that my email address doesn't apply even though I bought the VTM. So, I suspect the deal is triggered by some email system and there must be some kind of threshold that determines who gets the deal or who doesn't. Or, their database is fucked up. LOL
|
|
|
|
Post by jcoutu1 on Nov 21, 2016 11:31:10 GMT -6
I got a reply from Slate that my email address doesn't apply even though I bought the VTM. So, I suspect the deal is triggered by some email system and there must be some kind of threshold that determines who gets the deal or who doesn't. Or, their database is fucked up. LOL Is it possible that you used a different email address in the Slate system? |
|
|
|
Post by swurveman on Nov 21, 2016 12:34:36 GMT -6
I got a reply from Slate that my email address doesn't apply even though I bought the VTM. So, I suspect the deal is triggered by some email system and there must be some kind of threshold that determines who gets the deal or who doesn't. Or, their database is fucked up. LOL Is it possible that you used a different email address in the Slate system? No. |
|
|
|
Post by popmann on Nov 21, 2016 14:13:24 GMT -6
First off....other than having the input/output adjustment to zero sum the gain, and the addition of the one newer cleaner SSL model, there IS no noticeable difference in VVC 1 and 2. Anyone claiming that v2 sounds markedly better, just never had the upsampling on in v1.
But, do you WANT the "loyal customer deal" Swurve? Or are you just pissed because it wasn't offered with your owning the one plug in? I would put money on Slate giving it to you if you want it.
I think what people aren't considering in this "who got the offer".....is that I took him up on his "free for 6months" subscription deal....turned it off, like I said I would before I had to pay for it. But, I can't imagine there's a reason to get bent out of shape about it. Email him. He'll honor it. At the end of the day, he wants as many people on the sub by any means necessary.
|
|
|
|
Post by popmann on Nov 21, 2016 14:16:33 GMT -6
I didn't finish my thought on the VCC v2....that was for SLATE's support benefit--it made it part of the VMR framework. Ironically--the thing that has ensured I never buy another plug from him.
But, this idea that his plugs all need "v2'ing" is UA bullshit. UA had DOGSHIT emulations that were literally 20 years old and they started making "v2", which turned them into modern recreations that did the IO modeling they thought wasn't needed with UAD1s. This is the exception to the rule. No one who has been living on the cutting edge of analog emulation algos for the past 5 years "needs" a new version.
|
|
|
|
Post by wiz on Nov 21, 2016 14:30:49 GMT -6
First off....other than having the input/output adjustment to zero sum the gain, and the addition of the one newer cleaner SSL model, there IS no noticeable difference in VVC 1 and 2. Anyone claiming that v2 sounds markedly better, just never had the upsampling on in v1. But, do you WANT the "loyal customer deal" Swurve? Or are you just pissed because it wasn't offered with your owning the one plug in? I would put money on Slate giving it to you if you want it. I think what people aren't considering in this "who got the offer".....is that I took him up on his "free for 6months" subscription deal....turned it off, like I said I would before I had to pay for it. But, I can't imagine there's a reason to get bent out of shape about it. Email him. He'll honor it. At the end of the day, he wants as many people on the sub by any means necessary. You can put me in the camp that thinks, thought, thunks 8), it sounds better...I put oversampling on in VCC1. Are you sure, there are no differences Jamie? other than the addition of new type? Its jumping out at me, otherwise I wouldn't use it. You might be right about the loyal customer, cancelling the original subscription during the demo, I did that.. maybe thats why I got the email...? I actually don't mind the VMR after using it this time, I didn't like it first time around... there are things I would still like to see... for example I would like to be able to see all VU meters at once when first setting VCC up within the VMRs instantiated...I would like to see all the metering and in and out controls in one interface, so I can quickly set levels... like you do on a console with VUs... Apart from that, its all working as advertised here. cheers Wiz |
|
|
|
Post by swurveman on Nov 21, 2016 16:28:46 GMT -6
But, do you WANT the "loyal customer deal" Swurve? Or are you just pissed because it wasn't offered with your owning the one plug in? I would put money on Slate giving it to you if you want it. I was just chiming in with my experience to add to the thread. |
|
|
|
Post by popmann on Nov 21, 2016 16:42:43 GMT -6
I've not noticed any. I'm not "sure"...I've not heard anything that warranted testing. But, maybe, since I'm going back to v1 simply to have a stand alone plug in outside of VMR, I'll run some tests with both installed.
Mostly though, as I move back to doing just my stuff, I don't use it much other than the busses on subs.
My issue with VMR is twofold: One is workflow: I can no longer glance at my mixer and see what I'm doing on a track. I simply see "VMR" and I have to open it up to see whether that's a subtle RCA channel color or cranking the highs on Revival or smashing it in parallel with the all in comp---or when I had the subscription, obviously a lot more. It also has no linking to follow channels--so it's not like I can open VMR in a perpetual window and it changes as I change channels I'm focused on....
The second, I wasn't aware of until I canceled the sub after intentionally using it exclusively for a while to see how that went. I thought they were working like Waves did--having a single "Waveshell" that serves up all the different plug ins. They are NOT. They are in fact HIDING the plug in security, having taken it out of Cubase's hands. Otherwise, Cubase goes to initiate it, and checks the license with iLok, "yes he has a license for VMR"--it goes to open and THEN Slate's VMR platform rechecks the ilok to determine whether you're licensed to open the given modules. This is a HORRIBLE precedent....it has caused me to have issues opening projects done while I had the subscription. Having Cubase generate errors trying to initiate VMR after getting the clearance from iLok to do so....circumventing the native protection APIs of Cubase was a terrible idea. If I used a demo of some plug in that I'm no longer licensed for, Cubase simply bypasses it and gives me an error when I open telling me it couldn't initiate this and that plug in....take it away....it has no ability to do that, but it's also maybe not able to initiate, so....I just loaded the demo of 8.5 to see if that behavior was due to my using a relatively old version of Cubase. It is NOT.
|
|
|
|
Post by M57 on Nov 21, 2016 17:35:08 GMT -6
popman, So am I to understand that if I cancel my subscription, my projects would be ruined, corrupted, or frustratingly difficult to un-Slatify?
|
|
|
|
Post by BenjaminAshlin on Nov 21, 2016 17:50:52 GMT -6
popman, So am I to understand that if I cancel my subscription, my projects would be ruined, corrupted, or frustratingly difficult to un-Slatify? In Logic and Protools the plugin just gets grayed out in the VMR window if you no longer have the license. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 21, 2016 17:59:04 GMT -6
I've not noticed any. I'm not "sure"...I've not heard anything that warranted testing. But, maybe, since I'm going back to v1 simply to have a stand alone plug in outside of VMR, I'll run some tests with both installed. Mostly though, as I move back to doing just my stuff, I don't use it much other than the busses on subs. My issue with VMR is twofold: One is workflow: I can no longer glance at my mixer and see what I'm doing on a track. I simply see "VMR" and I have to open it up to see whether that's a subtle RCA channel color or cranking the highs on Revival or smashing it in parallel with the all in comp---or when I had the subscription, obviously a lot more. It also has no linking to follow channels--so it's not like I can open VMR in a perpetual window and it changes as I change channels I'm focused on.... The second, I wasn't aware of until I canceled the sub after intentionally using it exclusively for a while to see how that went. I thought they were working like Waves did--having a single "Waveshell" that serves up all the different plug ins. They are NOT. They are in fact HIDING the plug in security, having taken it out of Cubase's hands. Otherwise, Cubase goes to initiate it, and checks the license with iLok, "yes he has a license for VMR"--it goes to open and THEN Slate's VMR platform rechecks the ilok to determine whether you're licensed to open the given modules. This is a HORRIBLE precedent....it has caused me to have issues opening projects done while I had the subscription. Having Cubase generate errors trying to initiate VMR after getting the clearance from iLok to do so....circumventing the native protection APIs of Cubase was a terrible idea. If I used a demo of some plug in that I'm no longer licensed for, Cubase simply bypasses it and gives me an error when I open telling me it couldn't initiate this and that plug in....take it away....it has no ability to do that, but it's also maybe not able to initiate, so....I just loaded the demo of 8.5 to see if that behavior was due to my using a relatively old version of Cubase. It is NOT. Ironic - that dongle licencing idea was why I gave up on Cubase (the version I had needed the dongle which eventually fell apart, grrr) |
|
|
|
Post by popmann on Nov 21, 2016 21:38:35 GMT -6
When it works properly, it's "just greyed out". That IS how it's supposed to work. That's the problem. It's SO against best practice to bypass native plug in handling. For the reasons shown--the fact that it "usually works" on "most systems" in 2016 is missing the entire point of development best practices.
Yes, it crashed the shit out of my previously solid system(s). Maybe they work it out....maybe they don't--it's a shit call to not allow the DAW to handle it. It has NOTHING to do with Cubase specifically....ALL apps have a built in way to handle plug ins you're not licensed for--and when you bypass it, you're GOING to increase instability....
I was able to reproduce it on BOTH OSX and Windows. Luckily, I was ALSO able to figure out that it seems to be timing related, as I could eventually open those projects and remove VMR instances-once they were gone, they opened fine. I went ahead and uninstalled VMR, opened all current projects---and THEN Cubase would have control back, because it was a legitimately "missing plug in" which it has a mature trapping for....remove all those missing instances, resave, reinstall VMR, and I'm back to being solid. But, I shouldn't have to have done that. Again--to be clear, I don't think this is something they did on purpose to make it hard. I think they did it because their project manager(s?) are green and let the devs get away with what is a fundamentally poor practice. One of the problems with outsourcing framework is that you need someone to watch them like a hawk who has been around the block.
|
|
|
|
Post by donr on Nov 21, 2016 22:10:53 GMT -6
popman, So am I to understand that if I cancel my subscription, my projects would be ruined, corrupted, or frustratingly difficult to un-Slatify? As I understand it, if you wanted to go back to a Slate plugged project after you've left the subscription, you'd just have to buy one month's worth of re-instatement to revisit the project and its plugins. I hate to open a project and get told that the DAW can't find or authenticate plugins I used in the mix last time around. Yuuge pain. Subjectively, I think all the Slate stuff reworked into the VMR format sounds better than V.1, and I had all the V.1 stuff. I think the tape emu sounds better today too, than when it came out. But then I think a lot of plug in software got better starting about 2-3-5 years ago than it had been previously. |
|
|
|
Post by donr on Nov 21, 2016 22:52:36 GMT -6
I didn't finish my thought on the VCC v2....that was for SLATE's support benefit--it made it part of the VMR framework. Ironically--the thing that has ensured I never buy another plug from him. But, this idea that his plugs all need "v2'ing" is UA bullshit. UA had DOGSHIT emulations that were literally 20 years old and they started making "v2", which turned them into modern recreations that did the IO modeling they thought wasn't needed with UAD1s. This is the exception to the rule. No one who has been living on the cutting edge of analog emulation algos for the past 5 years "needs" a new version. Slate's VCC 2 seems better to me. It very well might be the ease of grouping the console module's drive and model switching across all instances under the VMR framework. You can easily hear what it's doing and have control over it across any channels you put it on. Also, VCC was basically the first plug of its kind, wasn't it? There may have been room for improvement. Certainly the implementation was improved. popmann's opinion on "v2'ing" has me LOL. It's the second occasion in my time here where Jamie's post made me laugh out loud, imagining a comical Bizarro Pro-audio World where Pop's opinion is pull quoted, in this instance, UA uses Pop's opinon of their V.1 plugs in an ad to sell their V.2 versions. Made me nostalgic for the RGO hang in Nashville last year. Getting back to Slate, I'm kinda disappointed that along with teh subscription, all the subscription plugins don't work in the VMR. I like the VMR, haven't yet had any experience with the Soundtoys version. |
|
|
|
Post by ragan on Nov 21, 2016 23:04:27 GMT -6
First off....other than having the input/output adjustment to zero sum the gain, and the addition of the one newer cleaner SSL model, there IS no noticeable difference in VVC 1 and 2. Anyone claiming that v2 sounds markedly better, just never had the upsampling on in v1. I disagree. I used all of the different oversampling settings on VCC1 and VCC2 sounded different to me. Slate said as much. He didn't want to seem like they changed it dramatically because that would imply it wasn't already God's Gift To ITB Mixers Everywhere, but he did admit that they tweaked algos. |
|
|
|
Post by popmann on Nov 22, 2016 9:41:11 GMT -6
Then color me wrong. Won't be the first time. The only thing I noticed was that the Neve didn't bump the lows as "oddly" as v1, but I attributed that to my mostly dining the IO to the point it sizzled--something you couldn't do with v1 without engaging a gain plug after. IM admittedly moving further away from anything "stictly analog modeled" on this journey. FWIW, I want to be clear that what I described (opening old projects) is not intended-no conspiracy here. Save that for national politics.  It's a malfunction, but it's the kind of thing you are asking for by bypassing the DAW's built in methods of plug in handling. I say that as someone with 15 years of corporate level IT experience part of which was reigning in developers to meet spec while building something that will last through upgrades without recording. If you adhere to what is referred to as "best practices" you will see reduced support costs down the road. The hard pill is that if a rev has a "shortcut" not caught early enough, it can cost a chunk up front to rework it. If it's an outsourcer doing the coding, they couldn't give two shits about best practices--they don't have to support the code--just deliver it on time. This isn't the forum for discussing the "soft costs" of outsourcing and risk mitigation....but, suffice to say, Slate is new to this game and it shows in this way. |
|
The delay looks bad ass, the email I got said it was $99 right now but will go up to $149.
It's a malfunction, but it's the kind of thing you are asking for by bypassing the DAW's built in methods of plug in handling. I say that as someone with 15 years of corporate level IT experience part of which was reigning in developers to meet spec while building something that will last through upgrades without recording. If you adhere to what is referred to as "best practices" you will see reduced support costs down the road. The hard pill is that if a rev has a "shortcut" not caught early enough, it can cost a chunk up front to rework it. If it's an outsourcer doing the coding, they couldn't give two shits about best practices--they don't have to support the code--just deliver it on time. This isn't the forum for discussing the "soft costs" of outsourcing and risk mitigation....but, suffice to say, Slate is new to this game and it shows in this way.