Both have had good SOS reviews, and have provoked a lot of hysteria on a certain other forum. Has anyone here used either or both?

I can't demo either product until my Ilok 2 arrives later this week. Meanwhile I would like to hear any opinions about this stuff, good or bad. Thanks!

Excellent, both. The VCC is harder to quantify, but remove it from your mix and it won't sound or sit right anymore. I've become a big fan of Slate and Fabrice Gabriel.

Cheers,
Sam

--------------------
http://www.soundcloud.com/sambrox
seedy.dk

Well, I'm afraid I'm not a fan. I have VCC and I've played around with it a lot. What happens, for me, is that while it initially sounds good, I find there's a mushiness to the mix that bothers me. So I back it off, then take it off some things, then take it off everything and suddenly the mix opens up and sounds better again. It's adding noise and crucially distortion, and this is something that we find time and again that the computer is not yet capable of doing well. The difference with analogue is that analogue manages to add the harmonics, the colour, without making things turn to mush. I'm always keen to check out any new developments in this area but this one doesn't really float my boat. Just an opinion.

J

--------------------
www.jackruston.com

I've used VCC quite a lot and have been playing with VTM lately too. I agree with Jack that real analogue is still preferable, sonically, and by quite a way (to any plug-ins, not just these). Though obviously not everyone has the luxury of being able to work with analogue all the time these days, and there's definitely a place for plug-ins like this IMO.

I keep changing my mind about VCC. I find that it works on some mixes really well, and not so well on others. If you do want to hear what it does, just whack it on a bunch of channels and busses, and leave the drive settings where they are. Then try bypassing them as a group. I don't like the effect of increasing the drive, and using just one instance on something and trying to add colour seems to yield nothing useful.

The VTM is really good for a plug-in. Arguably the most 'authentic' sounding tape emulation in plug-in form, and certainly less of a pain in the arse than real tape. But I've found that it's not always the best choice — sometimes the UA Studer/Ampex emulations are better tools for the job, sometimes not.

Bottom line is you'll need to play with both demos, compare with other things, and make your own judgments.

I've played around with Slate VCC, but it didn't do anything wonderful for me. I didn't even find it gave me the extra headroom I'm looking for in saturation plug-ins.

I used to use URS Saturation a lot, usually over my mix buss, and for a while everything seemed to sound better for it, but mix by mix I gradually lost faith. At first I felt it was an improvement, but eventually each time I hit the bypass button my mixes seemed to sound better. It didn't work on every mix, anyway, but the hit/miss rate seemed to be reducing.

I'm in a similar honeymoon period with Cubase 7's new saturation options. It certainly gets me where I want to be, and at the moment I really like it. It really helps snares to pop, for example. I'm actually trying not to overuse it - and definitely not across the mix buss. Maybe this is the one? But in 3 month's time?...

--------------------
An Eagle for an Emperor, A Kestrel for a Knave.

While I haven't used these products, I did listen to the audio demos of the VTM from the SoS review as I'm exploring options for my next purchases. I didn't hear anything that much better about the mixes that warranted the cost, or looking into it any further for me.

To be honest, all it did was make the mixes a little noisier, and a little less defined. For me, they didn't sound warmer or have any more character than the clean mixes. It could be used as an "effect" but I've decided I'd rather just mix better with what I've got.

--------------------
www.exaviormusic.com
www.manninmusic.com Music Teacher, Isle of Man

Quote Dave Rowles:

---

...I didn't hear anything that much better about the mixes that warranted the cost, or looking into it any further for me.

To be honest, all it did was make the mixes a little noisier, and a little less defined. For me, they didn't sound warmer or have any more character than the clean mixes. It could be used as an "effect" but I've decided I'd rather just mix better with what I've got.

---

Thanks for the opinions guys. Having listened to the SOS files, I'm inclined to agree with the above. Quite disappointing, even a bit of a joke considering the hype.

I'm gonna pass on this stuff. And having decided that, I'm already a couple of hundred quid richer, have saved myself loads of time and faffing about – and my mixes will still sound great!

(Though I do like the way the reels go round and around on the VTM's graphics).

It's not possible to not like that.

--------------------
www.jackruston.com

Well, I guess it depends what you're aim is when using these plugins. I certainly aren't using them for obvious saturation. Most of the work I do is media composing, where everything is in the box and for most part software instruments. For me, they take the digital 'plastic' edge off everything in a way that doesn't compromise the character of sounds, and as I said, in the case of VCC just helps them to sit better or blend. I'd love to go the analogue route (that's where I started, after all) but don't have the time/money/space for it! This is as close as I've gotten via software (haven't tried Nebula, though).

What these plugins won't do though is magically make your mixes sound like Chris Lord Alge

Cheers,
Sam

--------------------
http://www.soundcloud.com/sambrox
seedy.dk

I think to dismiss them would be the wrong way to go. I have both. I use them when they make the track sound better. But I don't always use them. There is definitely a sweet spot around which tracks can sound a little cold and digital and the other end where they sound over processed. It really takes fresh ears to judge whether these plugs improve a track or not.

I find on orchestral and ensemble recordings I rarely use them, as listeners seem to prefer a natural sound and most plug ins take away from that. On rock and pop tracks I find both plugs can really work well, but they won't help if your mix is muddy or sucks anyway. On electronic music I don't find they help much at all. But that's what my ears at saying, yours may say different.

I'll tell you one thing UAD, Waves, cytomic, slate etc etc have really helped me make radio or iTunes ready tracks without having to go into expensive studios for musicians on a limited budget! I wish these had been around years ago!!!!

I quite like the VCC (not withstanding the bugs I experience on a Nehalim (sp??) processor). I initially really liked the Neve model but I've found myself using the SSL one a bit more recently. It doesn't do MUCH but it does help get you that sheen just that tiny bit quicker.

I dont disagree with what Jack said , though. But it gets used occasionally here.



VTM - really like the 30 ips 2 track. Work for me (again, a little buggy on my system).

I use the VCC and like its ability to soften the edges of my mixes ever so slightly - I like the sound and use it on all my mixes these days. What I don't like about it is that the meters don't work when I use it in Audition. (They work when I use it in Reaper.) Another thing I don't like is how complaints on my part about the meters (and complaints from other users about various things) have been met with a series of excuses and promises from Steven Slate for over a year, but nothing's happened (other than the Slate company coming out with a bunch of new products). Irritatingly crummy support, in other words. I'm interested in VTM, but I'm not touching it until they pick up the ball on the VCC.