Slate says Monday for VMR

[db3]

Hopefully future add-ons are not too pricey

Slate has said that add-ons will be attractively priced, and that they will provide the odd freebie to keep people happy

[Peter - IK Multimedia]

How is this compared to the IK Multimedia 1073 EQ?

Hah, funny... I answered this same question a couple of days ago to a friend of mine through mail. So I can post my humble, personal opinion with a couple of mouse clicks:

NEVE 1073 (3 band EQ):

IKM:
- EQ is frequency locked
- GUI looks like the hardware
- offers different drive modes (MIC and LINE), Preamp can not(!) be turned off (not suitable for usage with a Console Emulation like VCC)
- noise floor is at -80dB to -100dB (decreasing the higher the frequencies)
- MIC mode boosts the output by +3dB (bar minimum)
- frequency plot is not flat on default EQ settings (has a slight LF and HiMid boost)
- EQ has fixed oversampling with a steep high cut filter at 21khz even at higher sampling rates. Shouldn't be noticeable, but this is a known thing of IKM tools
- EQ adds additional harmonic content!
- Gain boosts are not as strong in the HiMid range (+6dB results in +5dB)
- Low Cut introduces strong Resonance peaks!
- Plugin works independent for L and R channel (can introduce phasing issues)


Slate Digital (modded to have 2 mid bands, therefore 4 band EQ):
- EQ is not frequency locked but freely sweepable (but there is a hack active - if you press on the frequencies, it "jumps" to the exact values)
- GUI looks like the hardware
- modded 1073 to offer 2 mid bands
- does not offer Phase Switch!
- offers different drive modes, Preamp can not(!) be fully turned off, but is "barely noticeable" in "Line" Mode (harmonic content way below -80dBFS, planned to be used with VCC)
- noise floor is at -140dB
- frequency plot is not flat on default EQ settings (has a LF boost below 20Hz, and a HF roll off at 10Hhz)
- EQ boost adds harmonic content
- Gain boosts are stronger in the HiMid sections (+6dB results in +6,2dB)
- Q values seem to be a tad smaller than with IKM
- Low Cut at 80Hz introduces also a slight LowShelf
- Plugin fairly mono compatible



Personal summary:
Like with the IKM 81, the preamp if the IKM 73 can't be turned off. So you have to live with a fairly strong harmonic content (and not a nice one IMO) if you want to use the EQ. This is not made for working together with a console preamp (think Slate VCC).

The Slate FG-N is more subtle on the saturation part. As mentioned, it is planned to incorporate VCC into VMR. But the saturation will still add up.

What I like with the IKM creation is the frequency lock. Something that does work with the Slate creation, only with a workaround. The frequencies are not "locked" there (FG-N), but freely sweepable. Then again, if you want "locked frequencies", you basically press on the EQ values and it knob jumps and locks into place. Interesting concept - and the best of both worlds. But I'd love to have a "locked" mode overall. No thinking, always working with hardware controllers as well.

What's surprising, is that the Slate NEVE, while lower in "saturation", adds more bite to the EQ curves compared to the IKM one. The IKM one sounds softer, has wider Q as well. But one thing that is really not swinging with me, is the Resonance at active Lowcut of the IKM creation. While this is a great effect for creating WahWah effects (if it would be freely sweepable), it's adding too much unwanted content in a mix. Here the Slate EQ is better, albeit softer due to an additional Low Shelf on higher cutting frequencies.

The CPU usage is also not to underestimate:
Slate VTM eats with one instance of the NEVE about 5-8% and 174MB RAM - more modules per rack or racks don't matter much. IKM EQ73 only eats 30MB RAM, but 10% CPU per instance. This is adding up quickly.

NOTE:
The CPU and RAM specs in question are based on my Intel Core i7 920 (Bloomfield) with Windows 7. The rig the the person I sent this mail to is an iMac11,3, fully maxed out, with an i7 870 (Lynnfield). CPU and RAM values tested in VST Plugin Analyser, with the Windows Task Manager opened.


Corresponding Frequency Plots to this "mail" can be found (for the time being) here:
NEVE comparison - IKM vs Slate Digital (490kb, PNG, ZIP with LZMA compression)



From a couple of pages back, the THD+N Plots again.

Are you saying the mic and line buttons on the IK 1073 model don't do anything?

Quite the contrary.
The preamp in the IKM versions are IMO a bit too strong for my tastes. And, you can't turn them off.

The concept of the IKM Neve's are, that they are used standalone, and not necessarily "stacked" (read: mixing-and-matching). Due to the fact that you can't turn off the preamp in there (read: there is always a preamp active!). So stacking with a console type emulation would be absolute overkill (and not sound pleasant - at least it didn't to me).

Slate's stab at the Neve 1073 (a modded one even) is more subtle in terms of the preamp, because one of the concepts is to maybe use it in combination with VCC Brit N's channel. (as mentioned earlier, there ARE plans for a VCC module in VMR).

Though I filed FR'S several times by now to maybe offer a "stronger standalone" preamp mode, and a "VCC preamp" mode for those of us that do not have VCC, neither need it. (with a small button at the bottom of the module, in the black box where the rack name resides).


Here is a comparison of the THD of the IKM EQ73 and Slate VMR FG-N:

IKM EQ73 (Preamp Setup to Line, 0dB Gain)


In theory, you even have to pull down the Input Gain by at least 10dB or utilize proper gain staging. Here is the IKM EQ73 again, this time the Line signal pulled down by about 10dB



In direct comparison:

Slate FG-N (basic preamp setup, 0dB Gain)


And just to see how Slate VCC Channel (Brit N) stacks with VMR (FG-N)


Blue is VCC -> VMR, Red is just VMR.

If you compare that plot with the IKM EQ73 plot... stacking doesn't make sense. I tried it, doesn't sound very nice IMO. So as usual, the devil lies in the details.

BTW: VCC stacks just as well with Nomad Factory's British NEQ (1081), but not so well with IKM's EQ81.

And this frequency plot shows what's happening while stacking VCC (Brit N) with VMR (FG-N)

Though a warning. Those that want to stack VCC Brit N with VMR FG-N, need to pull up the LC so that it's at bar minimum slightly out of the "off" zone (that's about 30Hz).

Else you get an EQ boost of about 5-7 dB (lowshelf) around 35-40Hz.


Routing: VCC Brit N -> VMR FG-N

The lightest line is without any low cut in VMR (HPF)
The second lightest line is with HPF @30Hz LC
The dark line is with HPF @50Hz.

Routing of VMR -> VCC results in about +0,5dB to +1dB higher readouts of the lowshelf.

I hope this is suitable enough for a comparison.

I know this isn't an IK thread but we're being compared and it seems there may be some issues with the comparison, at least according to the project manager and devs that created the IK plugins you are mentioning here. They have taken a look at the comparison and in order to not take this too off-topic I will merely present their thoughts for your (and everyone who is using said analysis to form an opinion, though hopefully they are using the plugins themselves and forming their own opinion and doing any graphs if that's what they need to do etc):

We've looked in this thread for more information or visual representations of these so called “resonance peaks” mentioned. None are presented which may mean two possible things:

- There's an incorrect measurement with few values in the FFT analysis which could lead to misinterpreting the results

- Confusion between what is viewed as a resonance peak with the LF bump caused by the output transformer, which is constant at all frequencies (which actually goes to prove the accuracy of our model)

Also there is incorrect information presented with regard to the oversampling setting, as it can be enabled or disabled at will when the plug in is running at 44.1/48KHz sampling rates, and disabling automatically when running at 88.2 or up.

About the Q and gain values, in regular hardware units these can change depending on several factors, like tolerance of the components, aging of the unit etc…the unit we modeled had those values that we closely followed; this fact is also shown by the other plugin manufacturers' values not being the same as declared on the hardware. 

With oversampling disabled the latency is 3 samples, which is close to zero. The fact that another plugin doesn’t have latency brings us to the conclusion that it doesn’t use oversampling, at any sample rate, which then leads us to belive that the modeling was done differently than ours... We'll leave it at that.

About the fact of the fixed frequencies versus sweepable frequencies, this is kind of a philosophical question: if we are to model a given circuit design we have to respect its peculiarities; in this case fixed frequencies derive from the way the circuit has been conceived; changing that would lead to change the way the circuit is laid out. Not that this is not doable, but it’s merely a different approach. I fully understand that digital can be used to overcome the analog hardware limitations and we do it whenever we think this is a good plus for the user while staying true to the nature of the analog hardware, but then again…it’s a matter of approach.

[hibidy]

Hopefully future add-ons are not too pricey

Slate has said that add-ons will be attractively priced, and that they will provide the odd freebie to keep people happy

Negative nancy here .......

Considering how long this was in the making, I'm not sure I'd be anything but patient when expecting these

[kmonkey]

Intro price ends on December 1st.
You get two licences

Email I received from Audio Deluxe states they have the $149 price (plus $20 voucher) until 12/14/14, which may be handy for people who need a little longer.
I'm playing with VMR now and have to say I quite like the sound of it. Workflow is nice too. And I can only agree with what you've said Andy about future modules not being too expensive.

Sorry for hijacking so Audio Deluxe is best for ordering this plugin ? Any better offer?

So am i guessing it right? If i buy it at Audio Deluxe it will cost me 149$ - 20$ voucher = 129?

That's handy ..

What about Plugin Discount website? They have great offers from time to time..

[ftech]

Both Audio Deluxe and Plugin Discounts are offering VMR for $149, and both are offering a $20 voucher to use on your next purchase, not on VMR.
Slate are doing the free (not including postage) ilok deal.

[hibidy]

Oh......well, that's a bummer.

Why aren't these place just doing their regular "see price in cart" discount

[ftech]

I know this isn't an IK thread but we're being compared and it seems there may be some issues with the comparison, at least according to the project manager and devs that created the IK plugins you are mentioning here. They have taken a look at the comparison and in order to not take this too off-topic I will merely present their thoughts for your (and everyone who is using said analysis to form an opinion, though hopefully they are using the plugins themselves and forming their own opinion and doing any graphs if that's what they need to do etc)

No, it's not an IK thread, but as it's IK products being compared here a right of reply is more than justified.
I'm demoing VMR against TRacks gear as well, and what I've decided is that for me, both are very good products.
With the current GB at IK my TRacks collection will be overflowing with cool stuff
And I think that VMR will find a place on my HD as well. I'm finding the workflow and sound to be appealing to me.
And anyone who bases their decision on a few posts and graphs on internet forums rather than demoing for themselves....well.....

[ftech]

Oh......well, that's a bummer.

Why aren't these place just doing their regular "see price in cart" discount

Still think the current promo price for VMR is good. I'm guessing Slate doesn't want resellers undercutting them on a new product

[Compyfox]

The following answer by IKM is built upon my VST Plugin Analysis comparison (including personal opinon, I can't stress that enough) from a couple of pages back. Most notably:
http://www.kvraudio.com/forum/viewtopic ... 3#p5946203

I know this isn't an IK thread but we're being compared and it seems there may be some issues with the comparison, at least according to the project manager and devs that created the IK plugins you are mentioning here. They have taken a look at the comparison and in order to not take this too off-topic I will merely present their thoughts for your (and everyone who is using said analysis to form an opinion, though hopefully they are using the plugins themselves and forming their own opinion and doing any graphs if that's what they need to do etc):

You should know me by now, Peter. I'm using VSTPlugin Analyser for serveral years, I'm a beter tester for various companies, and I'm pretty much pedantic if it comes to metering tools.

Sorry, but your... "thread jumping" looks to me like hurt feelings by the IKM dev team. And what they did, is not really putting either you, or the company, in a good light IMO.



But let me get to some of the comments:

We've looked in this thread for more information or visual representations of these so called “resonance peaks” mentioned. None are presented which may mean two possible things:

- There's an incorrect measurement with few values in the FFT analysis which could lead to misinterpreting the results

If you aim at the THD+N plot - then yes, the readout can be "shifted" or even "wrong" if you ignore that the IKM creation might(!) use a reference level - which I assume at this point. Go beyond that level, and you may have a strange/wrong readout.

A flaw of the VST Plugin Analyser (standard version, and sadly a slightly bugged out Pro version) is the fact, that reducing the test signal pretty much not possible unless you incorporate a chainer tool and a separate gain plugin to turn down the test signal, or you're lucky that the Workbench is working flawlessly. Which is why I created two snapshots of the plot. One with the full scale DIRAC test tone of VST Plugin Analyser, one with the gain knob (IKM GUI) pulled down.

Everyg other comment towards the preamp is based upon personal opinion with listening tests. More important to me was the curve behavior.

- Confusion between what is viewed as a resonance peak with the LF bump caused by the output transformer, which is constant at all frequencies (which actually goes to prove the accuracy of our model)

Don't think so... the plots I presented may only show 80Hz, but every LC setting in the IKM creation has a "high Q" value, resulting an a "resonance bell" on top of the center frequency. Something that is not happening with the Slate Digital creation. And to be honest, neither with other Neve clones I've tested over the years. Among them: Nomad Factory, Waves and UAD themselves. None of them have such high Q values for the LC.

This is what I was mainly pointing out. And maybe wrongly called "resonance peak" (and therefore laid out as "wrong understanding"). English is not my first language - but I'm stealing myself through it fairly welll.


The plots of the IKM vs Slate EQ can be found here again:
NEVE comparison - IKM vs Slate Digital

Also there is incorrect information presented with regard to the oversampling setting, as it can be enabled or disabled at will when the plug in is running at 44.1/48KHz sampling rates, and disabling automatically when running at 88.2 or up.

In this case, you are barking up the wrong tree.

Yes, I am aware that the IKM plugins can be turned off in terms of OS (which seems to be 2x OS most of the time - personal impression), and yes the frequency analysis would represent that. But I loaded the plugin in "default" (read: no changes, no presets), and VST Plugin Analyser is set to 44kHz at default as well unless I mess with the sampling rate. Showing the behavior with each sampling rate setting would have surpassed the purpose of the original mail - and was also not interesting to the person I originally sent it to.

Else there would be several plots at different sampling rates with the very same EQ setting. Interesting to a tech head, not interesting to a mere user. The only thing you can blame me for, is my lazyness of not providing more plots.

About the Q and gain values, in regular hardware units these can change depending on several factors, like tolerance of the components, aging of the unit etc…the unit we modeled had those values that we closely followed; this fact is also shown by the other plugin manufacturers' values not being the same as declared on the hardware. 

I never doubted that. I think I even mentioned that Slate had access to a different(!) hardware module than you have. Actually, I'm basically preaching that since day one where I started my infamous "hardware emulation list" (some might still remember that one - I gave it up due to eating up too much time). So things are bound to look and/or sound different. And this is once again something I merely pointed out.

i.e. - your 1081 is stronger and steeper in terms of gain boost and Q factor, while the NF British NEQ is about 1-2dB weaker and generally "wider" in terms of bell frequencies. Yet the NF plugin is more versatile due to it's "too clean" and "too tame" nature. At least in my opinion.

You sum that up yourself later in your comment with "it's a matter of preference".

With oversampling disabled the latency is 3 samples, which is close to zero. The fact that another plugin doesn’t have latency brings us to the conclusion that it doesn’t use oversampling, at any sample rate, which then leads us to belive that the modeling was done differently than ours... We'll leave it at that.

I quote myself once more:

Code: Select all

IKM EQ73 (1073)                     - Initial Delay: 3 (low latency mode), 131 (OS mode)
IKM EQ81 (1081)                     - Initial Delay: 3 (low latency mode), 131 (OS mode)
Nomad Factory British NEQ (1081)    - Initial Delay: 0
Slate Digital VMR (FG-N / 1073)     - Initial Delay: 0

Tested at 44kHz / VST Plugin Analyzer sets to that sampling rate on host relaunch

Just two to three posts below my re-quoted bulk of information.

Yes, each company does it different. Actually, TokyoDawnLabs and Variety of Sound don't use OS anymore and still create outstanding EQ's and compressors. Which tool performs better, is not important at this point. Which is actually usable during tracking, or usable with crap implemented PDC (host side) does matter however.

I also leave it at that.

About the fact of the fixed frequencies versus sweepable frequencies, this is kind of a philosophical question: if we are to model a given circuit design we have to respect its peculiarities; in this case fixed frequencies derive from the way the circuit has been conceived; changing that would lead to change the way the circuit is laid out. Not that this is not doable, but it’s merely a different approach. I fully understand that digital can be used to overcome the analog hardware limitations and we do it whenever we think this is a good plus for the user while staying true to the nature of the analog hardware, but then again…it’s a matter of approach.

And, this clearly shows that somebody got massively hurt with my analysis, and didn't read my personal opinion fully. I clearly stated in my mail/post that I actually do prefer the limitation of "preset frequencies" and "stepped gain" (read it again, third paragraph!).

I love using the NF NEQ-1072 (which is a 1081) over the Focusrite Midnight Suite (Focusrite ISA clone!) due to the fact that I can just sit down, listen, grab my controller knobs, set it to a certain pre-selected harmonic/tuned frequency (thanks to Ruper Neve's research), and then either boost or cut to my liking.
Bam, done within seconds.

Or, I could just sit down at the Focusrite, sweep through the frequencies, find the right one that is standing out to much, or needs a specific boost (read: sweep for it), and then go from there. But then again, I could in theory use whatever EQ is at my disposal.

However, both EQ' types (NEVE with locked frequencies, Focusrite with freely sweepable ones) are equally great, and do the job they are supposed to do. Heck, I just love "british" EQ's. One is just more technical, while the other is more "musically restricted". It's basically down to a darn matter of convenience!

Personally, I want a NEVE EQ, or a Malcolm Toft EQ (Trident A Range) due to this. Limitation, ease of use, instant gratification. But it was a close call for me not to go for IKM's plugin due to: reasons I clearly stated. And these are my personal opinions. An opinion, that I was asked by a fellow musician/hobby engineer. Nothing more, nothing less.




Now with the post from you (read, the IKM Dev Team), it shows me that you not only do some overly aggressive marketing that scare a lot of users away as of late (don't let me get started on the custom shop, and/or the resale policy). But you also need to "correct" personal opinions, prove that you're in every way better than the competition (any competition really - including UAD, who hold the "official rights" to port NEVE gear) and that the person in question that did the comparison (read: me), did something wrong.

I'm a longtime IKM user. Heck I love my T-Racks gear (that I can't afford more gear, or the custom shop... "thing", lies on a whole different ballpark). But now I'm considering getting rid of it just because of your plain arrogance and constant thread jumping to come off in a better light. This is giving me a lot of warning signals and red flags, also considering your almost bi-monthly sales.

Come to think of it, I haven't used my T-Racks gear in weeks (if not months). If at most, then only the Opto comp, which is slowly being replaced by the Klanghelm DC8C-2, the Slate compressors or even the new U-HE Presswerk. The only tools I'd keep are the CALREC EQ (Classic EQ) and the Pultec, though I do prefer the Nomad Factory Pultec more. And yes, I do know that this is based upon yet another Pulted hardware module that NF had at their disposal.

And sadly, there is no real alternative to IKM ARC as of this moment. But even that is stuck in it's own dark hole considering that the industry is aiming more and more at surround sound.




Thread jumping all good and fine, but this move was more than arrogant IMO.
Nice work.

Maybe start an own thread and say "we're better than Slate Digital - this is the reason why", and then duke it out with Steven Slate personally? Actually - I'd love to see that happening on GearSlutz, see the "results" out of that.




EDIT: Some grammar work. It's late over here.

[hibidy]

Lord have mercy..........I'm goin' in!!!!!

[ftech]

Lord have mercy..........I'm goin' in!!!!!

Good luck buddy!

[Funkybot's Evil Twin]

Compyfox, I didn't get the same reading of the reply that you did. I have no problem with IK's response, and thought it was enlightening and valid.

On to the comparison, I prefer the wider Q of the IK version, and find it sounds more open and smooth on the hi shelf as a result. The mid bands sound similar enough, but I much prefer the sweepable Hipass filter on the Slate version. I like the tone of the saturation on the IK version, but it's too hot for my taste at times. When it works though, if sounds great, but yea, completely negates the need for a separate console plugin.

The FG-N sounds harsher in the top end, but much less saturated overall, which is nice. Driving the FG-N is odd. It's either very clean, or very distorted. No middle ground with the saturation. I also prefer that Slate opted for the 'best of both worlds' approach with the freq selection. Wish IK did the same. Also appreciate the extra band on the Slate version.

In short, it's six of one, half dozen of the other. Both are very good and have different merits.

[hibidy]

Lord have mercy..........I'm goin' in!!!!!

Good luck buddy!

Well, all the ilok2 hoops are jumped, all the licenses have been registered, and all the guitar parts were played with slate. Impressive so far.

[ftech]

Driving the FG-N is odd. It's either very clean, or very distorted. No middle ground with the saturation.

In short, it's six of one, half dozen of the other. Both are very good and have different merits.

Agreed on driving the input on FG-N...not that it sounds bad, just a bit more range would be useful.

[ftech]

Well, all the ilok2 hoops are jumped, all the licenses have been registered, and all the guitar parts were played with slate. Impressive so far.

The presets seem to be mostly Rock oriented, but it's sounding very nice indeed on some synths here....
Plus, I think it may become first port of call for drums for me.