|
Post by jcoutu1 on Nov 9, 2015 9:38:16 GMT -6
Amen to that Cat5. I also agree that it will take a while to sort itself out before we can make reasonable assessment of how good and how useful it will be. For a singer/songwriter like me, it would have been a godsend three years back, but now, I'll most likely wait this one out until the new product glow wears down a little. In my guts, I still want the real thing in my hand if I can get it, but this may prove to be a highly valuable tool. Slate's track record is kind of 50/50 when it comes to the hype equaling the product. For a guy like you, wouldn't just having one mic that's right for your voice be the key? You don't need a bunch of different flavors that the Slate could give you, just that one right flavor for your voice. And as for the preamp modeling, you've got that in your Apollo right, so no need for you there either.
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Nov 9, 2015 9:39:12 GMT -6
Yeah - if it works, it will be fantastic. I know this, I use my Apollo Unison pres about 2% of the time over my real pres. Makes me wonder if this would suffer the same fate.
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Nov 9, 2015 9:40:11 GMT -6
Amen to that Cat5. I also agree that it will take a while to sort itself out before we can make reasonable assessment of how good and how useful it will be. For a singer/songwriter like me, it would have been a godsend three years back, but now, I'll most likely wait this one out until the new product glow wears down a little. In my guts, I still want the real thing in my hand if I can get it, but this may prove to be a highly valuable tool. Slate's track record is kind of 50/50 when it comes to the hype equaling the product. For a guy like you, wouldn't just having one mic that's right for your voice be the key? You don't need a bunch of different flavors that the Slate could give you, just that one right flavor for your voice. And as for the preamp modeling, you've got that in your Apollo right, so no need for you there either. It could potentially be perfect for me...having many people coming in and out recording vocals. With the ability to set it up, record and then change the mic and pre later. Could be amazing.
|
|
|
Post by jcoutu1 on Nov 9, 2015 9:47:50 GMT -6
For a guy like you, wouldn't just having one mic that's right for your voice be the key? You don't need a bunch of different flavors that the Slate could give you, just that one right flavor for your voice. And as for the preamp modeling, you've got that in your Apollo right, so no need for you there either. It could potentially be perfect for me...having many people coming in and out recording vocals. With the ability to set it up, record and then change the mic and pre later. Could be amazing. Seems like a great product for someone running an overdub / demo room (like yourself). For a one man show, like Martin, it seems like it could be overkill and more overall hassle (software setup and installs, vs. plugging in a cable), than just having that one perfect mic.
|
|
|
Post by cowboycoalminer on Nov 9, 2015 9:58:17 GMT -6
gear like time moves on:meaning at some point software modelling will get good enough. Maybe that time is now. Yeah, no doubt, you can tell the time is upon us by how all the microphones, compressors, eq's, preamps, consoles.... etc, etc, etc, and MIXES have surpassed the quality of the old stuff 8) as of now, you could dedicate the entire processing power of a macpro to modeling a mic, and it aint gonna be anymore than video game close, I give it a year after release, after the initial orgiastic buyers confirmation biasfest 2000, everyone will start complaining about how "slate pulled a fast one", it'll be far worse than the over hype around the Apollo. Well I don't know about overhype of the Apollo. I still use one everyday and it seems to be working out just fine. No one is saying (I don't think) that software is trying to kill hardware. The point of these new technologies is to empower musicians. Empowering musicians simply could not be accomplished when I started this stuff in the early 90's except for in an expensive studio. A lot of us, including myself, are demo guys. We crank out a lot of productions and simply can't afford to pay 1k a song for top production. So we find a happy median. My tracks are listenable and I use an Apollo on several different voices in my mixes. It's an interface, a means to an end, nothing more. I'd use this Slate thingy if it have me a good result and wouldn't think twice. Not many of us are striving for a Grammy.
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Nov 9, 2015 11:58:56 GMT -6
jcoutou, I absolutely have been looking for that one special mic. I'm fairly sure I've found what I want, ( Soyuz SU-17), but until I have $3,500 to spend, I'll have to work with what I have. If the MK-U47 build had been around a few years back, I'd have gone that way. My Blackspade UM-17 B is quite a great mic, even though I'm still looking for THE ONE.
I do like tracking guitars with the Neumann KM-84 when I can borrow one from my friend, and my wife loves the Blackspade. The Slate system could potentially give me access to a U47, KM84, sound, and a few others, which seems cool, but I'd much trather just have the one I love, and only then add something new as I go along.
Maybe Santa will find a way to help me get the Soyuz..
The Apollo did everything UAD promised and more. I would love to bump up to the newer model soon. I'm just finishing a video comparing the Dizenfoff D4 to a basic preamp, (the Apollo), not as a shootout, but just as a reference tot see what the D4 is doing. What's interesting is how good the Apollo does sound, even though prefer the tracks with the D4, I can't say the Apollo track paled in comparison.
|
|
|
Post by kcatthedog on Nov 9, 2015 12:25:22 GMT -6
gear like time moves on:meaning at some point software modelling will get good enough. Maybe that time is now. Yeah, no doubt, you can tell the time is upon us by how all the microphones, compressors, eq's, preamps, consoles.... etc, etc, etc, and MIXES have surpassed the quality of the old stuff 8) as of now, you could dedicate the entire processing power of a macpro to modeling a mic, and it aint gonna be anymore than video game close, I give it a year after release, after the initial orgiastic buyers confirmation biasfest 2000, everyone will start complaining about how "slate pulled a fast one", it'll be far worse than the over hype around the Apollo. I don't disagree Tony amd you may have noticed my diy c12 and mk-u47 are hapily ensconced a chez blue I see a nice 251, 84 and ribbon on the horizon sometime. I watch the technology advance with interest but I use less than 10 of my UA plugs so I am a littel jandiced about each wiz bang new plug
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Nov 9, 2015 13:06:23 GMT -6
Here's the problem for me...it's not going to take away my lust for the real thing. It's more of a sickness than anything to do with the way it sounds
|
|
|
Post by cowboycoalminer on Nov 9, 2015 13:22:09 GMT -6
Here's the problem for me...it's not going to take away my lust for the real thing. It's more of a sickness than anything to do with the way it sounds Stay Calm And just buy the mic...
|
|
|
Post by chasmanian on Nov 9, 2015 15:18:01 GMT -6
my own thoughts, which may only apply to me, with regards to having only 1 vocal mic, or more than 1: I do a wide variety of songs. some are very soft and quiet. others are very loud and rockin'. and everything in between. in my experience (I'm an amateur , I find that different mics can excel in different songs (or types of songs, maybe I mean to say). the idea of finding THE Perfect, be all end all mic, seems like a cool idea. but as time goes by, I've kind of gotten the multi mic impression. (and I love gear, what I can say. might as well face reality, right? lol)
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Nov 9, 2015 16:49:47 GMT -6
chasmanian, basically, there are around a half dozen sought after world class vintage mics. Any of them, will deliver great sound. Sometimes one in particular just suits a vocalist better.
When the mic is right, I sing better, so it's very important to me. In major recordings 99% of the time, a wide variety of mics are used, each instrument has it's own best match, (theoretically). Where I say The One, I mean the one vocal mic best suited to my voice. My second most important mic is for acoustic guitar. So far, the best acoustic instrument mic I've used is the Neumann K84, and then the Bock 195, but there are many I haven't tried. I'd stop right at the KM84 if I could afford one.
A Neumann mic will sound great on soft songs or hard songs, it's just how you use it.
This s why the Slate interests people, it would be fun to have the sounds of all those great mics available. I predict the Slate will find its place, but probably not knock out the best vintage mics, once owners get used to it. For a guy like me, mostly doing his own tracks, one at a time, the VMS could have been brilliant to start, but the jury is out until its been around for a while.
It does take some experience to properly judge these things though..
A copy of a thing might fool the ear in a blind test, but given enough time, differences will reveal themselves, and then it will be all you hear, so I doubt it would hold up. Still, I wish Slate well, and hope I'm wrong.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Olhsson on Nov 9, 2015 18:47:41 GMT -6
I think my biggest concern about both slate and UA is how fragile the resulting audio is and how well it can accept the inevitable additional processing.
|
|
|
Post by chasmanian on Nov 9, 2015 18:54:12 GMT -6
hey Martin, fascinating and excellent, all you wrote. I sure know what you are talking about, with regards to right mic and singing better. same here. it is inspiring. really super awesome.
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Nov 9, 2015 19:38:41 GMT -6
Bob, can you elaborate on what you mean by "fragile" please.
My Apollo, and UAD's plugs haven't had any issues that weren't of my own creation. I'm still learning to gain stage, and on the rare occasion I've done it well, the track can take all the processing I've thrown at it. It's when I've let the levels get too high that the processing starts to pin me back in my chair.
|
|
|
Post by kcatthedog on Nov 9, 2015 19:45:53 GMT -6
I think my biggest concern about both slate and UA is how fragile the resulting audio is and how well it can accept the inevitable additional processing. I'm sorry to seem argumentative but what to you mean by either plugs making audio fragile ? The plugs run after the AD and before the DA so how do either make the sound fragile ? No offense but don't you have few ua plugs and none of the mkii or newer releases ? I don't know anybody who doesn't think the mkii's an improvement and I know people who don't even use the original legacy plugs. If you are using plugs and then outboard you must be going through another round of conversion. Is it the plugs you don't like or the converters or maybe both ?
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Nov 9, 2015 20:08:16 GMT -6
I think he's referring to how well it takes eq.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Olhsson on Nov 9, 2015 20:16:06 GMT -6
My experience with DSP has been that the sound quality goes downhill a bit after each additional process is applied. I just don't like the idea of not being able to back out to the raw microphone signal.
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Nov 9, 2015 20:27:47 GMT -6
From what I understand, you are recording a raw mic and pre signal and then it's processed with the software. So you would be able to back out.
|
|
|
Post by kcatthedog on Nov 9, 2015 20:42:42 GMT -6
I think the less is more approach with plugs makes a lot of sense. At some point for me plugs in seem like digital voo doo. Each plug in essentially alters your signal and all that manipulation of a digital model to me just can't be the same as running an analogue signal through an analog box. Call me a digital heretic !
|
|
|
Post by Bob Olhsson on Nov 9, 2015 21:40:59 GMT -6
Good to hear I had the wrong impression.
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Nov 9, 2015 21:46:46 GMT -6
Still - I have yet to have heard a flat Condenser mic under $1000...and this is a mic and a pre. So...
Hell, he could make a lot of money selling a $700 truly flat condenser.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Olhsson on Nov 9, 2015 22:08:41 GMT -6
I know.
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Nov 9, 2015 22:20:13 GMT -6
We will see if that truly is the case...
|
|
|
Post by kcatthedog on Nov 10, 2015 2:37:51 GMT -6
I don't doubt that the virtual mike will be good but there is an undefinable aspect to interacting with really good gear that I don't know can be modeled. As a guitarist, there is nothing like the feel of a great instrument and to me that adds a huge element to what I find intriguing and musically inviting. Software is a thing, like a guitar is a thing, but I don't believe the entirety of an experience can yet be truly modeled nor that it should be. There is something about plug in software design methodology that makes me wonder what is the code really doing to my actual signal. We have finite sonic characterics:freq, volume, timbre,technique and then we capture that with mikes and with boxes and model their electronic behaviour and why exactly the plugs sound good and bad I don't quite grasp or I find intangible ?
|
|
|
Post by Bob Olhsson on Nov 10, 2015 9:30:35 GMT -6
What I don't think can be modeled is the off axis response, diaphragm shadow and proximity effect. It obviously could work at one distance from a voice in a dead environment but moving the mike would create a completely different result.
|
|