u-he Satin or Slate VTM?

[Compyfox]

Quote pyramid was unnecessary.

??? What analague tape machines have a little knob that lets you turn down hiss or turn up Crosstalk?

I had to read that sentence three times to understand it.

No actual hardware tape machine has (features) a knob that edits the crosstalk or the noise floor "per se". At least not the consumer ones.

Large scale tape machines do have control over stuff like reference level, bias, etc. Modified once could introduce a lower noise floor - but it was either completely modded to forget it's there, or not at all. The rest is an added bonus by software!

There's absolutely no reason why, if you offer a control over hiss which does not and cannot exist in the digital realm, you can't make that knob go to zero. You are arguing for fidelity to analogue in a virtual tape machine which already does things no analogue tape machine ever does. Why in the world would you insist on analogue limitations?

Because it is the thing that people ask for! Period!
Be as acourate as you can, be spot on, introduce the mojo that people love.

And to that counts the limitations of the actual hardware: crosstalk (which will inevitably happen due to the way the tape heads are built!), noise, headroom, different tapes offering different distortion/compression if ran too hot, etc.

This is what pretty much all virtual tape machines do and offer these days. If all these little details would be missing (read: lack of imperfections), then you might as well just use a compressor and a plain digital saturator to get where you want.

I like Satin and like the hiss, though I find it builds up more quickly in satin than it does in VTM, which I've used before. I'm not sure why that's a problematic observation

It is problematic if people start to complain that it's:
a) too much
b) should be removed


But I bring some counter argumentation:
a) if you use the machine as intenden, meaning in the hotspot, you won't notice the noise floor
b) if the noise floor is at -60dB RMS (or even lower), and you use the Dolby NR system, you won't notice the noise floor

...unless, your recordings are pretty darn quiet, or have very low volume passages. And even then it's a pleasant noise IMO. Is it bothering you, use a nosie gate (another reason why they were built in the first place!).

It's like recording in good old 16bit, where the noise floor is also fairly high. But if you record at about -18dB RMS / 0VU and -9dBFS digital maximum, then you are in the hotspot and beat the limitation already.


Tape was like that. People hated it (the reason for noise gates and digital recorders). Now it's loved again.

And yes, VTM also introduces noise. Fairly high one even.



Furthermore:
Urs and Sascha already mentioned that there might be a "noise off" switch in a future update. But then again... why use a R2R tape emulation, if you're actually after a more digital oriented tape machine (DAT did NOT introduce Tape Compression/Saturation - hence the name "Digital Audio Tape" - but some of them had noise reduction modes).


So I don't get what the fuzz (see what I did there?) is all about!
If you just want saturation, then use a plain saturator. There is no need for SATIN then, or any other tape for that matter. Especially if you want to switch off everything that makes a tape machine a tape machine.

It's like using a Trident console, since you like it's sound, but the preamp is messing with the signal too much in your opinion - so you exchange it for a pure digital volume control. What do you think you'll have in the end?


Just my 2c.

[Spitfire31]

To get rid of the cumulative noise on a large number of silent tracks, I'd still recommend using noise gates.

Perhaps a noise gate would be an interesting feature to add to Satin? I guess that's more or less what Slate VTM does with it's auto-mute feature, too?

Noise gate? What's wrong with level automation which can be tailored individually?

/Joachim

[Ch00rD]

To get rid of the cumulative noise on a large number of silent tracks, I'd still recommend using noise gates.

Perhaps a noise gate would be an interesting feature to add to Satin? I guess that's more or less what Slate VTM does with it's auto-mute feature, too?

Noise gate? What's wrong with level automation which can be tailored individually?

/Joachim

Yes, automating levels would work just fine, requiring (much) more manual work, but also giving you very precise control.

However, conceptually it is much the same: a noise gate *is* setting the output level 'automatically', saving you the work of drawing 'automation'. Depending on how much controls it offers, a noise gate effect also enables users to tailor the output level, by means of parameters like threshold, attack, hold, release.

[sascha]

Hm... I'm a bit puzzled why even turning the hiss down to -100 is really an issue.

I really would like to know if people who're complaining about Satin's noise (default is -70dB, which would be 'state-of-the-art' on a real machine) would manage to mix a song using an analog recorder and an analog desk. Do we have a generation clash here or the like?

Don't get me wrong, I'd be the last to let the noise be much lower, say -120 or -140, no problem. I can also consider putting an auto hiss mute into it, although I personally find that disgusting in terms of model and 'purity' of the concept. But I'd like to be sure that changes I make to the plugin as a result of user feedback are actually making the product better and more easy to use. Therefore we have to assume that people are using the product 'as intended', e.g. to care about levels and do the engineering part in 'audio engineering'.
[Please bare with me, I even had to explain several times why turning the input level down (with auto-makeup on so that the output compensates) actually increases noise, which made me kind of 'wtf?'.]

[Gonga]

At least pops and crackles have a one-time novelty "special effect" gimmicky aspect

Erm... the vinyl-like crackles are the demo noise the plugin makes occasionally. It's not there in the unlocked version.
[That is clearly coomunicated on our web page, btw.]

, but hiss? Really? I have tried the demo and there were quite a few presets that I would literally never use because I don't have that hankering for the really degraded sounds, but I didn't realize you couldn't dial them back completely. To my ears, that's just plain silly, and would be a deal-breaker if true. I'll have to do some more tests with the demo.

Tried dialing the hiss down to minimum in the service panel?

I'm sorry for the mis-understanding Sascha, I was referring to the vinyl record simulators that add pops and crackles. Hate 'em.

I appreciate the desire for authenticity...it's very obvious to me this is a brilliant piece of work. I'm just trying to help you understand who Satin might not strike a chord with, and why, that's all. I started with a TEAC A-3340S 4-track in 1976...(well, actually I started bouncing tracks back and forth between two mono reel-to-reel tape machines around 1968). I remember adjusting the azimuth on other decks that had been knocked around...I have definite biases against particular artifacts of the tape realm. Please take my comments with a grain or three of salt because they may not even be relevant in light of the intentions of Satin...

If I'm working at 24-bit (as always) with a really low noise floor, 70dB just isn't good enough. If I use instances of Satin on tracks, and instances on busses and the final mix, then 70dB, potentially even 90dB, becomes even more problematic as the noise is additive isn't it? (it surely was with tape...)

Also, as we bounce the tape signal, does the hiss accumulate?

Just asking...I apologize for not having had the time to experiment further yet. Since I'm acting like Don Quixote flailing at hypotheticals here, I will now go away until I've had more time to experiment. It's neither fair nor wise to suggest improvements with only a few minutes seat time. I do love some of what Satin can do...and it does fit with some of my 70s background and sensibilities. I'll just take Satin's wonderful bias, saturation, flanging, etc. without so much hiss and flutter in mine please...

[Nokenoku]

People insisted on Crosstalk, Noise Floor, Tape/Tube saturation and what not as the only "right thing to do" (yes, I do blame certain engineering schools as well!).

Thinking that crosstalk would make anything better, is one of the most stupid things I have ever heard in my life.
The other things (noise, saturation, flutter) can have a good effect on some things.

Still -if it's possible- I'd always prefer to be able to set those things up seperatly in a plugin. Imo it makes no sense to (artificially) link those things together.
That's only an unnecessary limitation imo.



Oh ...
I haven't tried Satin (yet) or VTM, so I can't comment on those.

[Compyfox]

Crosstalk would drastically accumulate, if there are several modules in series.

Noise is however not an issue if the signals are hot enough. You're talking about -70dB RMS(!!!) being problematic. I don't think so. Why? Because -70dB (RMS) is usually at the corner or even below our listening range.


Use headphones (open ones) out on the streets, and you don't hear a thing. Use closed headphones and your volume is so low that you won't blast your ears, and you don't notice it anyway. Have a well leveled in signal, and you won't notice it. It even sometimes adds to else lifeless recordings.



Then I come with another question:
What does your ADC/DAC have as noise floor? Is it really as low as -140dBFS? Can you utilize the full 140dBFS? Will you use them or will your signal be squashed to bits in the end?


I have to defend Sascha here. I don't get all the fuzz. -100dB RMS is out of the listening range, a lot of tools these days have such a low noise floor as well and nobody cares. But with SATIN it suddenly is an issue (something I try to understand for a couple of posts now, and so far nobody gave me an understandable reason why!).

My ADC has a noise floor of -104dBFS at 24bit on the meter, and that's the Behringer SRC2496. I don't care about noise floor as long as it's below -70dB RMS if we talk about working purely digital (and -100dB RMS is fine!). But if we talk about tape machines or ourboard gear that we want to implement into our workflow, -50dB RMS to -80dB RMS has to be expected. But is a completely non issue if we use Gain Staging.



So again - and to back up Sascha - what would be the benefits?
And why would you use a Tape Machine (virtual), if you don't intend to utilize the imperfections that the actual hardware has?

And why the heck wasn't this adressed with other tape machines, but suddenly with U-HE creations?

[Thinking that crosstalk would make anything better, is one of the most stupid things I have ever heard in my life.

It doesn't make things better. But it gives the impression to some. Which is the very reason why analog "summing modules" still exist, and a certain fraction of people still insist that this is the way to go.

I wrote countless of developers that recently included crosstalk schemes into plugins to turn it off or at least have the capability to reduce it. To no avail.

Have a lot of them in series, especially if they're as strong as -45dBFS, and your signal will soon be a pile of mud.

Still -if it's possible- I'd always prefer to be able to set those things up seperatly in a plugin. Imo it makes no sense to (artificially) link those things together.
That's only an unnecessary limitation imo.

These things are not linked in SATIN, but they are related with each other. And they're a factor in actual hardware gear that could only be fixed with better spareparts, or heavy modification.

Alessandro Boschi for example, modded all his consoles that were then later recorded for Nebula. He reduced the crosstalk of the console. There are also plenty of modifications available for ADC/DAC's. Without these modifications and fixes, newer revisions of hardware would have never seen the light of day. And this wouldn't have driven us towards the digital realm in the end (which is a good thing!).

Why the digital realm is hated so much is beyond my comprehension. And it's even more if people insist on "emulations"; but say that noise, flutter and crosstalk is just wrong and shall be removed. This is all contradicting itself.

[@l3x!5]

Because it is the thing that people ask for! Period!

Well, not only, apparently

I don't get why you're so upset over this.

You're making it sound as if wanting to use the full potential of what today's technology and brilliant developers can bring to the table is somewhat childish. I really don't see your point.

If it's possible to pick and choose the best of both world, isn't that progress? Does it not serve us from a technological and artistic standpoint?

Furthermore, I find it a bit over the top to imply that removing at will (or controlling beyond original specs), one component of what makes a tape emulation truthful (here: hiss) would be akin to killing the whole experience, or some kind of sacrilege.

Tapes do not boil down to hiss, nor compression and saturation alone, else we wouldn't have any need for this nice plug-in. Hiss-less tape would certainly not equal ADAT sound. You of all knowledgeable people on this forum people know this.

It's like using a Trident console, since you like it's sound, but the preamp is messing with the signal too much in your opinion - so you exchange it for a pure digital volume control. What do you think you'll have in the end?

Curves, band interaction, different creative options without 'mandatory' limitations, ease of use (as opposed to "I can do this with stock EQ")?

edit: emphasis on 'mandatory'

[Spitfire31]

And why would you use a Tape Machine (virtual), if you don't intend to utilize the imperfections that the actual hardware has?

I'm not taking sides in the noise floor argument here, but wouldn't one of the attractions of a virtual tape machine be that you could choose and pick which 'imperfections' you would like to use in a particular case?

Of course, you would not then avail yourself of a painstakingly exact emulation of a physical machine, but rather use it for 'colours', as it were.

Anything wrong with having that option?

And why the heck wasn't this adressed with other tape machines, but suddenly with U-HE creations?

Perhaps because few developers have such a transparent (and highly appreciated!) interaction with users?

/Joachim

[Endor-8o8]

And why would you use a Tape Machine (virtual), if you don't intend to utilize the imperfections that the actual hardware has?

I'm not taking sides in the noise floor argument here, but wouldn't one of the attractions of a virtual tape machine be that you could choose and pick which 'imperfections' you would like to use in a particular case?

Of course, you would not then avail yourself of a painstakingly exact emulation of a physical machine, but rather use it for 'colours', as it were.

Anything wrong with having that option?

And why the heck wasn't this adressed with other tape machines, but suddenly with U-HE creations?

Perhaps because few developers have such a transparent (and highly appreciated!) interaction with users?

/Joachim

+1000
Digital domain is meant to give us the opportunity to modulate the audio environment as we wish, or maybe I was all wrong...

[@l3x!5]

And why the heck wasn't this adressed with other tape machines, but suddenly with U-HE creations?

Perhaps because few developers have such a transparent (and highly appreciated!) interaction with users?

This. Also precisely because there has been other faithful, more limited, tape machines emulation already.
Given the well deserved praise, respect and confidence U-He team, softwares, and overall policy inspire, it's no wonder some people feel that they could absolutely nail a kind of 'hybrid-next-step' when they have done so good, already, with the faithful imitation as it is.

edit: bad english

[Compyfox]

You're making it sound as if wanting to use the full potential of what today's technology and brilliant developers can bring to the table is somewhat childish. I really don't see your point.

I don't see that as childish. I see that the other way around. If we have control over a function, we can use it. But if these functions are limited, so be it. And if we want a certain "emulation", then we have to live with the limitations.

That's easy to understand, is it not?

Furthermore, I find it a bit over the top to imply that removing at will (or controlling beyond original specs), one component of what makes a tape emulation truthful (here: hiss) would be akin to killing the whole experience, or some kind of sacrilege.

Tapes do not boil down to hiss, nor compression and saturation alone, else we wouldn't have any need for this nice plug-in. Hiss-less tape would certainly not equal ADAT sound. You of all knowledgeable people on this forum people know this.

It's one thing to reduce the hiss of a module, or completely remove it.
Again, hardware have the limitation of hiss, hum, started to distort at certan voltage, have imperfections (tape) due to not consistent running motors, stuck capstans, damaged resistors/capacitors, etc.

If you reduce that to the absolute possible corners of the specifications of the original hardware, then it's still okay IMO. But removing it completely, it's not.


I still try to understand the hate towards pure digital environments, if people constantly want analog type gear in plugin form, and then remove the issues/imperfections of the hardware which made them so popular in terms of sound in the first place. And then brag on about it again that it's not "spot on enough".

Why not simply stay digital in this case?

Curves, band interaction, different creative options without mandatory limitations, ease of use (as opposed to "I can do this with stock EQ")?

But this is not an emulation anymore, or better said - that's not how the hardware worked. And people want the hardware for cheap. Along with total recall, ease of use and editing, portability, unlimited instances, you name it.

So either live with the limitations (even if they can be reduced), or use something of the digital realm. But don't insist on changing something for the worse just because it didn't fit your expectations. Especially if you never used the hardware in the first place.



I also hate certain limitations, certain modules, or a certain too high noise floor. But heck... there wasn't anything better back in the day. So we simply used what we had, tried to make the best out of it. Now we have access to tools beyond our comprehension.

But do we want a nice swiss army knive like SATIN that somewhat still limits us on purpose to our creativity and forces us to learn how to use a certain tool. Or do we want yet another modular environment (dare I say Reaktor Ensemble) where the sky is the limit and we'll never get anything done?

If limitations or imperfections are not your thing, or is not what you desire - then maybe this whole "analog meme" is just not the right game for you people.



Excellent music was made with hiss and noise. From the first day that audio recordings were possible up until now. So why must it be different with SATIN? A VST plugin that tries to emulate high end tape machines?



EDIT:

I'm not taking sides in the noise floor argument here, but wouldn't one of the attractions of a virtual tape machine be that you could choose and pick which 'imperfections' you would like to use in a particular case?

You can do that in SATIN. To the limitations the software gives you (which are more than suitable IMO!).

Of course, you would not then avail yourself of a painstakingly exact emulation of a physical machine, but rather use it for 'colours', as it were.

Anything wrong with having that option?

That's not wrong, but then again other tools might just be more suitable rather than asking the developers to abandon their concept (and invested time for such a tool) just to please every user.

Again, a nosie floor of -100dB RMS (hiss) and very minimal Crosstalk would still work if the signals are hot enough.

Perhaps because few developers have such a transparent (and highly appreciated!) interaction with users?

I was in touch through the development of VCC and VTM with Slate Digital and some of my ideas actually got ported. I also helped futher developing VUMT by Klanghelm (idea wise).

If it makes sense, developers are all ears.

But I still wait for an understandable answer why certain modes of SATIN should be turned off, if you could have used just another tool for the very same purpose. Maybe even one that's at your disposal already.

Digital domain is meant to give us the opportunity to modulate the audio environment as we wish, or maybe I was all wrong...

If you want to use an emulation, use it's limitations.
If you want to use part of an emulation, and the dev offers you to turn down stuff that you don't need (but still stay within specs), then use it.
If you just want to use part of an emulation (like just the saturation) but you can't turn it off in the module - then look somewhere else.
Not happy - don't use it.


This is how it was back in the days with hardware, why should it be any different suddenly with software?



Seriously... I still don't get it!
Fill me in, people! Why am I (thinking) wrong in this case?!

[Spitfire31]

This is how it was back in the days with hardware, why should it be any different suddenly with software?

That one is easy to answer. Because you can do things with software that would be physically impossible to do with hardware.

Why the fundamentalism?

/Joachim

[Compyfox]

This is the thing... it can.

But must it always do that? Especially if it's an emulation?
Then why even want an (accurate) emulation?


Because apparently, it also doesn't matter if a guitar amp is noisy as hell and you can't turn down the noise/imperfections (unless we talk Revalver!). In this case, it's spot on and even wanted/desired.

So... why?


That's not fundamentalism, that's a general question.

[Ch00rD]

[...] But that assumes that people are using the product 'as intended', e.g. to care about levels and do the engineering part in 'audio engineering'.

Speaking for myself only, please don't ever expect me to use any product only "as intended" by its manufacturer. I never felt like playing guitar along with TB-303 bossa nova basslines either. I'm really interested in learning as much as possible about the intentions of the designer, and how it ideally should be used, but that's about where it stops. Without the ability to 'abuse' technology for other means than it was originally intended for, imho audio engineering would be no fun at all, and Satin would arguably not deserve to exist in the first place - as tape machines themselves were originally designed to record and play back audio as 'perfect' as possible.

I wouldn't count myself among the people "complaining" about Satin's (minimum) noise levels, but yes, I would welcome some more tweakability and options. While I certainly appreciate authenticity in software emulations of analog gear very much, and love Satin for it as it is, I typically also like the ability to stretch things well beyond authentic emulation, at least where that makes sense to 'combine the best of both worlds'. In the case of tape machines, tempo syncing in Satin's Delay mode is a very good example, imho, and so is the triggered tape flange.

To me, the main use of any ability to lower the noise level even further would be where Satin is not at the end of a processing chain, but its output is further processed by effects which add a significant amount of gain, such as overdrive or resonant filters / narrow EQ boosts. The type of stuff that would be *very* noisy if I'd use an analog recorder and an analog desk to mix a 'song'.

On the other hand, I would welcome the ability to *increase* the amount of noise (Tape Hiss, Modulation Noise) beyond the current maximum values just as well, for more extreme lo-fi, much like we have discussed with regard to lower tape speeds.

For some other 'authentic' tape machine features, may I ask again if we could have the ability to switch the erase head on/off in Delay mode in some future revision? Imho that would be awesome for 'dubbing' effects and 'endless' loops.