u-he Satin or Slate VTM?

[pdxindy]

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

You are correct... you have the means to modulate the audio environment as you wish... You can choose to use Satin or not.

I think it is not a fruitful outcome for every tool to have the option to do everything. Every recording of dry vs Satin I have heard so far has made me say, wow, Satin sounds great! I have not noticed any excessive noise that disturbed my listening to the example.

I think rather than users immediately asking for more more more (likely without hardly even exploring what is there) the person should put in a bit of actual effort to record some audio examples demonstrating how Satin is adding too much noise. If there are actually real world uses where the user, following good practices, is unable to prevent a high enough noise floor that is an actual audible problem, then there is something to discuss.

[aboukirev]

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 it's not strictly an emulation. Sascha specifically said Satin is going to be a tape construction kit. It just happens so that you can build exact emulations of specific hardware with it.

I guess, people want something similar to what DMGAudio did with Compassion and Equilibrium: you can emulate hardware but you can also be as digital as you want.

I am happy with Satin the way it is now. I just understand and accept the fact that others have a different view.

[@l3x!5]

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

Compyfox,

You seem entrenched in a row of false dichotomy here. Your writing simply does not accurately depicts neither the situation, nor the options at hand, and I'm sorry to say that the lack of substantiated arguments on your part doesn't help you convey your point of view very well.

We are talking about options, not black-or-white-removing-anything-for-the-worse. Thanks to continuous technological progress and hard work on behalf of talented folks all around the world - who, day after day, push the limits of software and hardware alike - we have now access to wonderful, affordable tools that we could only have dreamed of decades ago.

More than anything, this gives us options. Some limitations are no longer, other are vanishing, new ones arise. Still, everything remains a moving target. That's how progress is made.

In the software realm, namely analog emulation, keeping historical hardware limitations for the sake of authenticity is great. It serves a purpose. We like it for a whole bunch of reasons: implied workflow, subsequent artistic decisions… Overall sound that was previously not available in a digital environment, and that we can now enjoy alongside other great advances like "total recall, ease of use and editing, portability, unlimited instances, you name it". It's also educational.

Now why does it have to stay that way exclusively? What purpose does it serve then?
Who are the "keepers of the flame"? Is there a kind of club that I'm not aware of? Where does this "either this or that" dogma of yours come from? I see the unwarranted snobbery when you go so far as to hint that one has no say in the matter unless he used the hardware, but that doesn't make for a very compelling argument per se, does it?

I don't see much hate anywhere anymore regarding the old analog vs digital 'debate'. Both have limitations that people now understand and try to live with while still looking for, or actively making, improvement on both sides.

In the case of Satin, we're talking about an emulation that already goes beyond that thanks to great tweakability. Still there should be an arbitrary "don't" to any other feature request?[1] Were there host-synchronizable stereo delays back in the days? Are we to throw Softube's A-Range out with the bathwater since they implemented a Saturation control? Or any comp recreation that includes a side-chain?

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

Because it's not the same? You really have to have taken this whole thing much too personally to fail to see that.

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?

This is not the point. At all. This is not relevant.

We as human constantly try and improve on existing ANYTHING.
There is nothing "sacred", even in more traditional craft, or we would still be playing piano forte, for example, whereas the good people at Fazioly still find ways today to improve not only the craftsmanship of piano making, but the instrument itself, which thanks to them continue to evolve. Doesn't mean you can't play Bach on it anymore, though.

Or does it? Are we allowed to play Bach on a piano? Or are we to stay true to what he intended ? Which was what, exactly? Hopefully you get my drift.

----------
[1]: because that's what it is, a simple feature request, nothing more. U-He will implement it, or not, at their discretion, as should be. This is not a case of customer entitlement. If anything - sorry to be blunt - you are the one acting like everyone should abide by your arbitrary rules, wishes, or personal views on the craft.

edit: spelling
edit 2: forgot this

[Ch00rD]

[...]

Btw, for more RE-201-esque effects (but without aiming for any sort of authentic emulation whatsoever), I have also played around with combining a reverb (have only tried Vee3 so far) with Satin in Delay mode, with feedback set to 0, and some clever routing in the host taking care of the cross feed / feedback. Getting some very nice results.

I can't find anything in service manuals, promo sheets or the official circuit (so still no info on the speed - though I do suspect 9,5cm/s or 3,75inch/s now, though I now have the confirmation that the tape was 1/4inch! Loocked wider in videos).

But I have two impressions:

a) the reverb is in parallel and therefore independent of the tape delay
b) the reverb is in series and therefore influences the echos


Though from quick testing the GS-201, I really have the impression that the reverb (just like the EQ) is post(!) delay, and also post-feedback knob. Turning up the echo intensity (feedback), just the reverbed signal would have modulated on top of each other, but it doesn't do that.

That means... you could use Satin and any spring reverb to your liking. As example, I could recommend the GSi Spring Reverb Type4 (which is actually a 2x Spring Reverb built for Hammond and Fender!), or SKnote's Necklace (which is a physical modeled up-to 6x Spring Reverb without boundaries).

Use the reverb pre SATIN (as tape delay) => Reverb being modulated by the tape delay (on tests, a bit unlikely) - can produce cracy washed out sounds

Use the reverb post SATIN => Reverb messes with the Tape Delay Signal - the "space" effect.

Use the reverb in parallel => Reverb is independent and you have a better control over what's going on. Mix to taste.




Roland RE-201 in a nutshell? Heck no, we don't break the rules - we bend them! Thank you digital environments.

I had another quick look at UA's RE-201 emulation (which, fwiw, is officially authorised by Roland and claims to be an authentic emulation in all details - with the exception of the noise in the reverb, of which the manual mentions the following: "On the original hardware the reverb output is quite low, and with some sources, unusable due to a high noise floor. Our model of the spring reverb has no noise, and has an increased available output level to improve usability.")

Some observations:
- The reverb and delay are parallel, and they are completely independent (no delay output going into the reverb; no reverb output going into the delay);
- The bass / treble EQ only affects the output of the delay, not the reverb;
- The inputs are summed to mono before going to the reverb and delay, which both output a mono signal. The reverb and delay output can be separately panned across stereo outputs (e.g. hard-panning reverb to the left, delay to the right).

So indeed, for more or less complete ball-park emulation of a Space Echo, one could use Satin and a spring reverb in parallel on mono signals, with separate panning, and an EQ after Satin for the bass / treble controls.

[Compyfox]

You seem entrenched in a row of false dichotomy here. Your writing simply does not accurately depicts neither the situation, nor the options at hand, and I'm sorry to say that the lack of substantiated arguments on your part doesn't help you convey your point of view very well.

Oh please. I'm the one with lack of points to sustantiate my arguments? I wrote exactly why I see no reason for "removing" (in form of completely turning off) a feature of an emulation (and may it only be a technical one), just for the sake of having a "more clean tool".

I still wait for arguments going for that particualr one. Just saying "to have more dynamic, due to a lower noise floor" doesn't count IMO (again, other tools are just as suitable in this case). Especially not if the signal is pressed to it's limits (meaning very high RMS levels to begin with), which ultimately evades all the talked about issues.

Else, yes... it seems to be split into either one or two, or analog vs digital, or oldschool vs modern. I didn't draw a line, which I then blurred out. I see SATIN as "tape machine", as it's advertised like that in the first place. The other features of this tool is an added bonus.

THIS - creates the blurred lines. And people want to blur it even more.

Which is why you write the following.

We are talking about options, not black-or-white-removing-anything-for-the-worse.

The thing is, that the demand was clearly "add it, else it is unusable to me".

Thanks to continuous technological progress and hard work on behalf of talented folks all around the world - who, day after day, push the limits of software and hardware alike - we have now access to wonderful, affordable tools that we could only have dreamed of decades ago.

I agree with the advancement of technology, but I do not agree with the comparision of talented people and pushing limits (especially not those "modern producers"). But this would bring me to a completely different topic (loudness war) - which is somewhat a part of this debate (ideal worklevel of the mentioned software). But let's not go there.

More than anything, this gives us options. Some limitations are no longer, other are vanishing, new ones arise. Still, everything remains a moving target. That's how progress is made.

Agreed.

But that doesn't mean that emulations must be on the one hand "accurate", and on the other hand "as bland as possible at the flick of a switch" (read: digital) by instant demand. At the same time.

This doesn't work this way.


I bring the example again with the Trident Channel Strip, and the "stripped" preamp since it's too noisy. Agreed, you can still use the plugin for it's based-on hardware design and therefore usability. You might also benefit from the courves. But dumbed down, it's just a digital tool, which happens to have similar EQ courves in terms of the EQ as the hardware. But you lack that made it so special: the harmonic fingerprint, the added noise (which does add something here and there) - pretty much the soul of this device.

An example for this would be the WAVES REDD, that I reviewed a couple of months back. Turn off the preamp and you still have access to the EQ courves. Good and fine, but it's not working like the hardware (passive, non powered EQ), it's just a plain digital EQ. And for this, I can use the a tad more evolved (in both hardware and software form) Antec clone by Nomad Factory. Which is just the EQ.

Now some might argument "but now it's more clean this way".
Then again, why spend even the money on it, if you simply turn off what's making this this special. You might as well go for other tools.

In the software realm, namely analog emulation, keeping historical hardware limitations for the sake of authenticity is great. It serves a purpose. We like it for a whole bunch of reasons: implied workflow, subsequent artistic decisions… Overall sound that was previously not available in a digital environment, and that we can now enjoy alongside other great advances like "total recall, ease of use and editing, portability, unlimited instances, you name it". It's also educational.

Agreed, this is what I wrote earlier as well.

Now why does it have to stay that way exclusively? What purpose does it serve then?
Who are the "keepers of the flame"? Is there a kind of club that I'm not aware of? Where does this "either this or that" dogma of yours come from? I see the unwarranted snobbery when you go so far as to hint that one has no say in the matter unless he used the hardware, but that doesn't make for a very compelling argument per se, does it?

It has to stay that way, because people demand it.

The "keepers of the flame" are the purists that want to have as acourate emulations as possible, so they can abandon their once beloved hardware.

You see these "dogma fights" especially on hi-fi boards, or boards where there are "hardware guru's" and "hardware defenders" (prime example: GearSlutz) with the infamous "triple blind tests" to see if one plugin is not only better than the other, but also to hear bits flopping.


But I am not making this as main argument. I am asking simply "why" an emulation has to constantly evolve! Why does it have to constantly go more towards the digital realm. Especially if we have so many tools nowadays that simply break the traditional rules (most recently: Blue Cat Audio's MB-7 plugin, just to name one).

Why can't an emulation simply be an emulation?
Why is there the constant need to finetune stuff? (example: with SATIN and the Studer A8xx presets - the noise floor is -70dB RMS max, pretty outstanding for that machine! Why the need to go lower?)
Why is there a need for certain switched to turn off what's not liked with the hardware? (like: noise, preamps, etc)
And why does it matter if you overdrive this tool anyway and would therefore not even notice the imperfections (unless it's crosstalk and saturation which is locked to a certain reference level - that you will clearly notice on too hot levels)?

Why are plain "digital tools" not as suitable in this case?

I don't see much hate anywhere anymore regarding the old analog vs digital 'debate'. Both have limitations that people now understand and try to live with while still looking for, or actively making, improvement on both sides.

To be honest, if you didn't see "much hate anywhere" (emulations in general), then you're just at the wrong places. Or I am - I don't know. But it is right that people finally (thankfully) start to understand what the hell is going on with both analog modeled and plain digital gear. Especially the bedroom producers.

But I wouldn't say that there is improvement on both sides per se.

Certain developers do bend the rules, or simply say "let's evolve stuff further". I count U-HE to these people, same with Variety of Sound (prime example!), Tokyo Dawn Labs (Proximity - has anyone even tried something similar before?!), back in the days even Antares (the Mic Modeler), AcousticaAudio (Nebula), Slate Digital (though not the first with the channel strip concept, but one of the first that did it right IMO!). Then DDMF (MetaPlugin) or Plogue (Bidule), XT Software (eXT) - which gave us modular environments.

All these people are visionary. And that's good.

But that does not mean that every available software has to have the same deep editing controls. Else something like DMG Audio's Equilibrium would happen: one EQ to end all EQs. Which, in certain ways is a good thing. And other developers are currently on the way to something limilar (Klanghelm's DC8C-2 is considered to walk among similar lines as Equilibrium). Though on the other hand, makes a lot of other tools simply obsolete.

The variety we have now, will degenerate that way. Actually, it's happening as we speak (Zebra was another concept design to "end all synth wars"). And certain developers will simply drop off the planet due to that if they do not adapt.

But I don't see a reason to do so.

In the case of Satin, we're talking about an emulation that already goes beyond that thanks to great tweakability. Still there should be an arbitrary "don't" to any other feature request?[1] Were there host-synchronizable stereo delays back in the days? Are we to throw Softube's A-Range out with the bathwater since they implemented a Saturation control? Or any comp recreation that includes a side-chain?

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

Because it's not the same? You really have to have taken this whole thing much too personally to fail to see that.

I do understand the demand to have total control over pretty much everything. I don't say anything against that particular point in the argument.

What I fail to understand (and franky, so do the developers in case of SATIN) is the "need" to do so.

SATIN does come with a SYNC function. Pretty much every modern compressor clone comes with sidechain (with some exceptions - like IKM's Neve 33609 clone, or Slate's RED3 clone), saturators can be tuned to your liking.

All good and fine. And excellent that we can do so.


Yet I do not understand the argument "there has to be a hiss/noise auto-mute if there is no signal applied" with the main reasons being "I want to use the full dynamic range" or "it's distracting" or simply "because!".

Again, I seem to be one of the rare people that wrote Slate Digital to actually reinsert the function to mess with Crosstalk values in VCC (which were part of early betas, though wasn't ported yet with current versions), but else - nobody cared. Why? Because you can't access both the noise floor nor the crosstalk settings.

Now we take a look at SATIN - here we have access to these settings, but they're not low enough for certain individuals. Boom - the feature has to (as in: must be) implemented! Else it's a crap and an (again quote) "unusable tool".

I - don't - get - it!

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?

This is not the point. At all. This is not relevant.

We as human constantly try and improve on existing ANYTHING.
There is nothing "sacred", even in more traditional craft, or we would still be playing piano forte, for example, whereas the good people at Fazioly still find ways today to improve not only the craftsmanship of piano making, but the instrument itself, which thanks to them continue to evolve. Doesn't mean you can't play Bach on it anymore, though.

Or does it? Are we allowed to play Bach on a piano? Or are we to stay true to what he intended ? Which was what, exactly? Hopefully you get my drift.

That the piano evolves is a good thing. (TouchKeys come to mind)
Playing a certain piece of music differntly is something I count to as interpetation. To be able to play it on Piano, is actually using a tool to express yourself.

Again, all good and fine. So is the "improving" part. Though certain things are "sacred" to me - and that (for example) is accuracy.


But the reasons why, is something I don't get.
"Why?!" "Because" "Explain?!" "Suck it up, you're dumb/misguided/you act like a god, and people have to apply to your rules!".

Okay - I catch your drift.
The argumentation doesn't lead us anywhere.




I guess the most important thing to me is not to turn off the noise, or reduce it. I know how to live with it, how to evade it, how to remove it. I know darn well the difference between old gear and new gear, and I'm thankful that I can use both these days without selling my soul.

I just want a working tool, I want it be able to setup to a certain reference level (which I hope will be ported in a future update: reference level linked to headroom/saturation) or at least know the specifications/limits of the tool.

And then I simply want to work with it. If I see something that can be improved, I contact the developer (as it happened with VUMT - which turned form a plain RMS meter to one of the best RMS/PPM hybrids!).

There are so many tools these days that complement each other. People should be more appreciative about them that rather than saying "ugh, this and that needs to be in there, just like with tool B - else it sucks! Now do so, else I won't buy it" (which could also bridge the gap to a far worse topic that has to do with the abbreviation C and P, so let's not touch it at all!).

This is far worse than me being defensive about an emulation, or certain limitations from "the old days". Think about it.

[1]: because that's what it is, a simple feature request, nothing more. U-He will implement it, or not, at their discretion, as should be. This is not a case of customer entitlement. If anything - sorry to be blunt - you are the one acting like everyone should abide by your arbitrary rules, wishes, or personal views on the craft.

Noone is abiding to "my arbitrary rules" - especially not developers (unless they see a reason to do so - like: does it drastically improve my creation/the workflow, and would it sell?).

You people constantly insist that what I say is "the rule" - which is not the case. I'm merely commenting on something that I see as stupid debate. Then again, I'm known to think different (spaghetti lord forbid that I'll change that!).


And what did we do? We wasted over three pages on this already! With the developers shaking their heads over it as well. If this doesn't tell you something, then I don't know what will.


With that said - I simply lost the mood to futher debate. It's taking too long for me to track the posts, and to answer in a proper manner.




TL;DR:
Your arguments are accepted, I just don't get them.

[metamorphosis]

Some songs sound better with a little hiss.
Some songs sound better with a lot of hiss.
That is all that should ever matter.
M@

[momalle3]

In future versions, can it be possible to turn the hiss all the way off?

[hibidy]

So I'm reading the manual and it's all good info but in fact it comes down to your ears.

However, this is starting to be one of those "really, this is this good?" plugs. First off though a little goes a long ways, you can get some dramatic results. I don't even try to understand all of it, but seems to work so far in live 9.06 and S1 2.6 x64. If anyone knows of an issue, please let me know so I can reproduce.

This doesn't make sense to me though:

Known Issues:
Satin needs a buffersize that's a multiple of 16 samples, e.g. 512. We'll fix this soon!

[Oden]

Why so serious?

This is a 1.0 and if it's a big deal for so many people then I'm sure a 1.1 will have an option to remove the hiss completely. In the same vein we also notice the requests for more lofi sounding options.

This - after all - is why we do introduction offers: Because we all know it's not perfect yet, and we want to give back to early adopters. That feedback is important to us.

Cheers,

- Urs

... And with this being said many noisy pages ago, can we move forward with the discussion and abandon the trolling?


(P.S. I would like full customizability as well).

[dalor]

Haven't read all posts and haven't demo'd (yet!) - so Satin adds a noise floor that can't be switched off?

Waves Aphex offers hiss that can be switched off. I think that should definitely be in the users control.

[Urs]

This doesn't make sense to me though:

Known Issues:
Satin needs a buffersize that's a multiple of 16 samples, e.g. 512. We'll fix this soon!

No worries, you'd hear it instantly if it affected you. It's some kind of screechy digital feedback in the delay section. Depends on host and ASIO drivers.

[Urs]

Haven't read all posts and haven't demo'd (yet!) - so Satin adds a noise floor that can't be switched off?

Yep. But it can be turned down way below the levels of ultra high end tape machines.

I'd recommend a higher level though, it is a large part of what makes analogue equipment sound "3D"

[hibidy]

Found a possible bug. In studio one x64 2.6 I'm getting a fluttery graphic where the eq plot is (to the right of the repro heads under service)

[zvenx]

I love options.......I did work during the time of analog hiss etc.
I do not miss it in the least bit. I can live with little hiss whilst the track is playing, but for me automute hiss when stopped is a must.
Drives me crazy.
my two cents...

rsp

[momalle3]

Found a possible bug. In studio one x64 2.6 I'm getting a fluttery graphic where the eq plot is (to the right of the repro heads under service)

I get that whenever I add certain effects_the compander, or more hiss. It's a feature, not a bug!

Just want to reiterate what a good plugin this is.