u-he Satin or Slate VTM?

[elxsound]

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.

Hibidy, Live allows you change the buffer setting to whatever you'd like (it's not limited to multiples of 16). I imagine this would allow for the screechy digital feedback. Hmmmm.... Now I'm curious what that sounds like. Will need to download/install the final version first.

[wald]

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.

Hibidy, Live allows you change the buffer setting to whatever you'd like (it's not limited to multiples of 16). I imagine this would allow for the screechy digital feedback. Hmmmm.... Now I'm curious what that sounds like. Will need to download/install the final version first.

I wish! Live lets me change latencies to anything but multiples of 16 with my MOTU 828

Thanks for the quick fix U-he.

[hibidy]

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.

Hibidy, Live allows you change the buffer setting to whatever you'd like (it's not limited to multiples of 16). I imagine this would allow for the screechy digital feedback. Hmmmm.... Now I'm curious what that sounds like. Will need to download/install the final version first.

Ah. Since I don't mess with that I guess it's of no concern.

[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)

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

Just want to reiterate what a good plugin this is.

Well why didn't I notice that the first time I tried it

[electro]

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.

I'm not finding Satin's noisefloor to be a problem. The whole intention behind Analog Multitrack machines was to best achieve the clean reproduction capabilites we have today via Hard Disk Recording!

The reason for analog tape simulators is precisely to re-instroduce the distortion and subtle changes that resulted from recording to that imperfect medium. Those cumulative imperfections include noisefloor.

[hibidy]

I also don't find the noise floor to be an issue. Then again, I don't do this:

[Compyfox]

I'm not finding Satin's noisefloor to be a problem. The whole intention behind Analog Multitrack machines was to best achieve the clean reproduction capabilites we have today via Hard Disk Recording!

The reason for analog tape simulators is precisely to re-instroduce the distortion and subtle changes that resulted from recording to that imperfect medium. Those cumulative imperfections include noisefloor.

Exactly...
And at -70dB RMS, it's IMO a non-issue.


Anyone knows of the japanese Band X-Japan?
Here's a video of how they edit the track "Dahlia" on tape, which is then recorded to a two track or something (you see several tape machines in the background).




This track was released in 1996, where CDs were well present already. I listen to this song pretty much every other day on my mobile (MP3 player), and I sometimes blast it just for fun at my studio. You do not hear ANY prominent hiss. And even so, that's character of that song:

http://youtu.be/eJWoGKFnok

I can live with little hiss whilst the track is playing, but for me automute hiss when stopped is a must.
Drives me crazy.

Auto-Mute on stop(!), is a different thing than auto mute if there is no signal present (read: a clean cut track on a HDD project), which in turn is unrealistic sounding.

I'd use a noise gate in this case (on the master bus for example). But if it'll be implemented, how shall the plugin know if the host is running or not (another sync function)?


Then again, I'm used to noise from TAL Dub, and while that drives me crazy after half an hour while songwriting, I don't really care while mixing.

[@l3x!5]

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

Ah, I must have missed that, sorry if that was the case. I remember respectful FRs regarding this, maybe on another forum? I might have just missed the entitled ones. Not cool.

Thankfully, the hiss doesn't affect me to that extent (I love hiss. I also love VTM's auto-mute option). I posted as a matter of principle, not in reaction to any U-He stance - they pretty much have the right to do as they please and present us with what they think is best from their point of view - but more in reaction to you, in that case, refusing to try and understand why anyone would want to work differently and have more options, however silly they may seem to you.

You're still arguing on the premise of a false dichotomy, where everything is binary where other options in fact do exist. Examples have been cited already.

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.

I was referring to the talented people who make our tools possible, from integrated circuits to software.

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.

You are right that it doesn't mean that it must, but you are wrong in believing that it makes you right about the fact that it shouldn't, ever.

This doesn't work this way.

But still, it does. Softube A-Range, amongst others, works this way, and seems to do a pretty good job at it too. If you don't like it, that's perfectly all right. But it does, nonetheless, work this way.
You are arguing that the only thing that makes it special is the preamp simulation and that it should be left untouched. I'm telling you that this is just just your point of view, where someone else could argue that what makes it special are its EQ curves, their interactions, the ease of use as opposed to "I can null this with tool x or y", and what the whole lot enables creatively by mean of workflow, in the way you might apprehend your mixing process or your music. You see? Some of the arguments you deem valid regarding limitations also apply here.

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.

Because someone might have a use for a cleaner way to process something, and a more truthful one to process some other, and might enjoy being able to use the same tool for both processes?

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

Once again, if people were only demanding it "that way", there wouldn't be much of a discussion here, would there? Also, from a rhetorical point of view, how does it make sense that it has to stay this way because people demand it, while at the same time it doesn't have to change if people demand it?

Why can't an emulation simply be an emulation?

Who says it can't? You're the one saying that it can't be otherwise.

Why is there the constant need to finetune stuff? […] Why is there a need for certain switched to turn off what's not liked with the hardware?

Well this shouldn't come as a shock, but not everyone hears, feels, works, do things the way you do. Nor has to.

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

False dichotomy again. There's a middle ground, and some people make good use of it.

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

I'll emphasize for clarity: "I don't see much hate anywhere anymore". I might just be wrong, though.

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.

Well I don't think there's a need per se, some users just wish they could while other don't care, and apparently some other are dead serious that there shouldn't be any choice in that regard under certain arbitrary conditions. Some developers offer choices nonetheless, other don't. This is not the big deal you want to make it to be.

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!

Well I wouldn't get it either if expressed that way, that's for sure.

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.

You missed my point. Some people still argue that Bach keyboard pieces should only be played on a piano forte (or harpsichord where relevant): never, ever, on a piano. HOLD TIGHT: because of the limitations. Of course, this doesn't make much sense. It's great to be able to hear Bach as interpreted on historical instruments, as well as it's very nice indeed to listen to baroque music on what we believe to be an accurate historical tuning (I love it). But making that a requirement or hyping it into any kind of Holy Imaginary Truth serves no meaningful purpose. Self-satisfaction, mostly.

Though certain things are "sacred" to me

There's a key word here. Emphasis mine.

But the reasons why, is something I don't get.
"Why?!" "Because"

"Why not?!" "Because". That would be the mote and the beam.

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

We get it. You're still not alone, though.
Also isn't there a bit of a double standard somewhere in these lines? I think so.

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"

Well maybe that's just me, but I tend to notice more the support and gratefulness most of users express. There hasn't been happier times regarding dev/users relationships (arguably from a user POV). I personally enjoy it very much, we are very lucky indeed.

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!)

Well if you feel that what you say is consistently misconstrued, you might have to reflect on it and try and express yourself in a different manner in order to make your point across. No one's out there to get you.

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.

Well I was under the impression that you were a big part in initiating this debate, and that you specifically asked for people to interact with you in the matter, as to point you towards where they thought you were maybe wrong (as quoted in my previous post).

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.

Sorry to hear that. I just hope there isn't any unnecessary bad feelings. I personally enjoy your technical posts very much and learned a lot from reading them. I just think you went totally overboard here.

[hibidy]

lolz with the long posts.......I can't keep up with that and have to scroll to much to get past it

[@l3x!5]

Sorry!

[hibidy]

Sorry!

I was just joking around mostly. I shouldn't have said anything

[@l3x!5]

No harm done I got a little carried away.

[Gonga]

I also don't find the noise floor to be an issue. Then again, I don't do this:

Well I've gone full-circle pretty much. When I heard people remarking about the hiss I imagined the problems I used to have, but Satin is modeled on much higher-quality machines than I was used to. I won't have a problem with hiss at all. Totally groovin' the tape echo - I used to do quadraphonic echo - circular - at 7.5 ips. If you cranked the levels the hiss would build up a lot in the 4-track TEAC. Satin provides the beautiful sound - very reminiscent - but with the noise turned down I can hardly detect it, even with feedback maxed to just before eardrum destruct. 'Course we did tons of bouncing. I did a radio show theme once in mono that had 4 levels of bounce, and you could cut the hiss with a knife. I couldn't afford a DBX unit, so I used to boost the highs going in and cut them in the outs with the early tracks to be bounced. Yep...those were the days surely.

By the way, the tape speed control is instructive. On the TEACS, 15 i.p.s. was much noisier overall, and higher frequency. It doesn't sound so pronounced in Satin, presumably because you didn't model a TEAC. But I was impressed by how quiet the 30 i.p.s. speed is.

You really outdid yourselves on the flange. I can't believe you thought of linear, exponential or logarithmic. Yeah man, I used to use logarithmic pressure on the flanges man, really!

So, I was sure I'd have no use for it, but I'm a proud new owner and very pleased with what this puppy can do. U-He quality all the way.

So in my view, most of the older generation types who truly hated hiss as I did, have nothing to worry about with Satin, even as she stands at this point in time. The concerns seem grossly overblown to me. I don't see using Satin on more than a few tracks and busses, and after turning down the hiss to -100, it just doesn't accumulate to audible like my old machines did. Unless maybe you were to add it to every track and very many tracks...

[PeterL]

I bought this plugin since it gives THE punch for acoustic guitars I want
But it is currently useless in Wavelab8 (all 64bit/PC):
VST2 version outputs just hiss after a short time of usage.
VST3 version doesn't work at all.
In StudioOne it works without any issue.
Nonetheless it's a very good plugin, which will cover my needs for tape sound for a long time.

[hibidy]

Oh......I didn't realize it was vst3. Will have to double check that on S1.