Slate VCC alternatives 2024?

[Scotty]

Since we have added additional expertise in the thread ( thank you Hornet) can we shed some light on crosstalk?

A. Crosstalk - is it in a significant way responsible for the added apparent dimension to the stereo field that analog console mixing or analog summing is said to possess?

B. In the physical world, some consoles have very little crosstalk as that has been effectively engineered out of their designs. Would we consider those consoles as having less desirable stereo dimension?

C. Is crosstalk effectively emulated in code by adding signal bleed to neighbouring channels?

D. If NOT, what is happening in code to create the apparent effect? Is crosstalk emulation advanced enough to actually component model the interactions of inductance and capacitance or is it approximated in some way with randomizers or some simpler process? If so, does it matter as the overall result is as effective?

[HoRNet]

Well IMHO in my experience the only real advantage of analog summing over ITB channel+bus saturation is the absence of aliasing.

Really you can't "economically" (meaning intern of CPU usage) create saturation ITB that does not produce aliasing, the same is true for any compression faster than 1s for example.
That's because you theoretically have to oversample to account for any harmonics generated over over the Nyquist frequency (half the sample rate) so if your saturation algorithm produces 2nd,3rd, 4th and 5th harmonics (pretty standard in analog emulation) you are going to get aliasing for any content over 4000Hz (unless you oversample) if you do 2x oversampling you get aliasing over 8Khz and so on. The same goes for compressors because you are multiplying the envelope followers with the audio signal when you do the gain reduction so if you have 0.2s attack and 0.2s release for example you are multiplying a 2.5Hz envelope follower with your audio signal, this means that over 8KHz you get aliasing.

Oversampling is crucial for non linear digital audio processing, you have to roughly grant at least 192Khz of bandwidth to saturator and compressors to get an acceptable level of aliasing (but you'll never be alias free)

IMHO this is the only reason why analog processing sound smoother and more defined, it doesn't has any aliasing in the high end!

Saverio

[HoRNet]

Since we have added additional expertise in the thread ( thank you Hornet) can we shed some light on crosstalk?

A. Crosstalk - is it in a significant way responsible for the added apparent dimension to the stereo field that analog console mixing or analog summing is said to possess?

B. In the physical world, some consoles have very little crosstalk as that has been effectively engineered out of their designs. Would we consider those consoles as having less desirable stereo dimension?

C. Is crosstalk effectively emulated in code by adding signal bleed to neighbouring channels?

D. If NOT, what is happening in code to create the apparent effect? Is crosstalk emulation advanced enough to actually component model the interactions of inductance and capacitance or is it approximated in some way with randomizers or some simpler process? If so, does it matter as the overall result is as effective?

you can easily find crosstalk specs for consoles online, for example here you can find the SSL origin one:

https://www.solidstatelogic.com/assets/ ... screen.pdf

basically you have around -60dB of crosstalk in the worst case scenario. and -79dB of noise floor with 32 channels active and routed to the master bus.

Saverio

[Trancit]

You’re not simulating MixFX, NLS, or VCC with a single EQ and saturator. You can do it on a single channel but not on a complete mix. Hornet’s point was about hardware summing mixers, not these plugins or complete consoles.

...

That´s one opinion... for me it´s good enough and I don´t know what there shall be missing...
In A/B´s I did against speciallized plugins they didn´t brought anything on the table I couldn´t achieve well enough with standard plugins...
As said 99% of the "analog sound" is just saturation anyway and a lot of "imaginery mojo" many people claim to hear but cannot prove, cannot explain, do not know why... just the statement that THEY can hear it...

What shall influence (in terms of mixing not sound design) the sound even more than EQ, Compression and any kind of Saturation/Distortion in the right way on Track/Bus/Master level???

I understand you are running a shop and want the people to buy plugins... therefore you might be a bit biased...

It´s of course obvious that you can reach a certain sound/behaviour much faster with a plugin where the developer has everything finetuned with some algo´s build in...
This is fine the way it is and everybody is welcome to use something like this...

For me it´s more the opposite... what I gain in terms of speed (and I am not torn in a dense timetable) I lose in terms of flexibility ... means the plugin perhaps nails this sound in a certain way but mostly it can do only this certain type of sound...
If I build my chains to replicate a similar behaviour I mostly will not nail it to perfection (what´s not my goal from the very beginning) but I have every freedom to go perhaps other ways much easier if it turns out it wasn´t the perfect match for this song...

The indegredients of "Analog behaviour" aren´t that hard to replicate good enough ...

How often have people already proven they can programm a pure digital synth like i.e. Serum, which was always said to be too clean and harsh, with very simple measures that people couldn´t tell i.e. against Diva which sound came from which...

The most of the claims about "magic analog" behaviour is marketing BS and just contain mostly out of very simple and logical laws/rules...
Put a bit of instability, Saturation/Compression and emphasise the right frequencies (perhaps a bit of noise) and you´ve got already a very good result where noone on this planet could tell the difference between a song mixed with a speciallized plugin and a song mixed my way... what do I want more??

In terms of a console the only thing not really possible to replicate without a proper plugin like MixFX is crosstalk which of course helps to get a more dense result in a pleasant way...
But to my knowledge it´s really just MixFX which does it properly so every enthusiast must use Studio One... it´s not the case, isn´t it??

At the very end it´s probably more a discussion about religion... one believes in this other believes in that ...
Sound is something similar... everybody hears what he wants to hear ... so everybody shall live the way he/she/it likes...

[Hettoblaster]

fwiw, for those seeking a 2024 VCC alternative:
Kiive Audio teased a plugin called 'Sum Bus' and said "think similar to NLS or slate VCC" and also "crosstalk is the main feature"
I for one am curious what Kiive will bring to this table and hope it'll drop before summer!

[_leras]

I'm really not sure this type of thing really adds anything that useful.

Just need to stick to a few basics and you.can get close enough:

1. Enough headroom when mixing and good gain staging
2. Some barely perceivable saturation on channels or groups
3. Some global reverb, will also introduce something akin to cross talk and noise
4. Perhaps a low level channel of noise that is also basically inaudible

I think very little modern electronic music would have any of this summing at all.

(*Unless you're having a Luca Pretolisi mixing/mastering from your stems through an analogue console)

[jamcat]

Not everyone is doing electronic music.

Personally, I've found the mojo comes from many subtle layers at various points in the signal chain.

The 3 or 4 things that I find have the biggest positive impact are good preamp modeling, Brainworx TMT channel strips, Studio One Mix FX, and a tape machine emulation on the 2-buss.

I also follow my preamps with a multi-track tape machine model, but some people may find that to be overkill (and a CPU killer.) It's the most CPU intensive step, and is less consequential than the 4 main ones I listed above.

Using preamp modeling on every channel has a cumulative effect, which is why you want a really good one. If you were only using one instance for an effect, you could get away with just about anything. But if you're doing cumulative subtle analogue saturation, lesser plugins will start to show their flaws. It might come in the form of making the mix sound congested, or it could be a hollowing out in certain frequencies, or just an overall harshness that builds up. If you're doing multi-track tape emulation on every channel, it also has to be really good for the same reason.

I've found Neve modeled preamps to sound the best across a mix. Specifically UAD or NoiseAsh. Pretty much anything that NoiseAsh has done is as good as its UAD counterpart, and can be interchangeable. I haven't really found anything else in the same class.

TMT is really good and it just works. NoiseAsh has it's own version of this, which they call "Nuance Deviation." So you could use a NoiseAsh channel strip instead of Brainworx. So my full path is Preamp→Tape→Channel Strip→Master Tape. This represents both the tracking session (Preamp→tape) and the mixing/mixdown session (Channel Strip→Master Tape.)

[Uncle E]

A. Crosstalk - is it in a significant way responsible for the added apparent dimension to the stereo field that analog console mixing or analog summing is said to possess?

In a console, crosstalk means the channels are getting into each others' EQ's and effects sends. Hard to say if it's significant but it's reasonable to expect that this contributes to glueing things together. In a low-end summing box, the only contribution might be a slight collapse of the stereo field (due to left and right signals getting into each, meaning nothing is fully hard-panned). In a high-end box like the D-Box, I assume the PCB is designed well and has the left and right signals segregated, thus any crosstalk is completely insignificant.

B. In the physical world, some consoles have very little crosstalk as that has been effectively engineered out of their designs. Would we consider those consoles as having less desirable stereo dimension?

If anything, these would have superior stereo dimension, as does digital summing.

C. Is crosstalk effectively emulated in code by adding signal bleed to neighbouring channels?

Yes.

[Scotty]

Thanks for responding Eric.

A. Crosstalk - is it in a significant way responsible for the added apparent dimension to the stereo field that analog console mixing or analog summing is said to possess?

In a console, crosstalk means the channels are getting into each others' EQ's and effects sends. Hard to say if it's significant but it's reasonable to expect that this contributes to glueing things together. In a low-end summing box, the only contribution might be a slight collapse of the stereo field (due to left and right signals getting into each, meaning nothing is fully hard-panned). In a high-end box like the D-Box, I assume the PCB is designed well and has the left and right signals segregated, thus any crosstalk is completely insignificant.

B. In the physical world, some consoles have very little crosstalk as that has been effectively engineered out of their designs. Would we consider those consoles as having less desirable stereo dimension?

If anything, these would have superior stereo dimension, as does digital summing.

C. Is crosstalk effectively emulated in code by adding signal bleed to neighbouring channels?

Yes.

[Uncle E]

That´s one opinion...

Not an opinion.

for me it´s good enough and I don´t know what there shall be missing...

Fair enough. I'm not saying you or anyone else should use these. I'm not even that big a fan of them myself (I use Softube Tape as my Studio One MixFX). But what you're doing is literally different than what they're doing and these big sweeping statements you're making about it being only hype and marketing are incorrect.

Anyway, going by your screen name, I don't see any reason for you to worry about it. I don't know of any major trance acts that mix on vintage analog consoles. These are tools for people nostalgic for a specific vintage sound that was until recently difficult to get ITB.

I understand you are running a shop and want the people to buy plugins... therefore you might be a bit biased...

Not biased. Hardly anyone buys VCC, NLS, or MixFX anymore. But I've owned some big analog consoles and have years of experience with them, and I'm willing to share about what makes them great if you're interested. Plus, it's cool having Hornet here discussing with us.

[Uncle E]

TMT is really good and it just works. NoiseAsh has it's own version of this, which they call "Nuance Deviation." So you could use a NoiseAsh channel strip instead of Brainworx. So my full path is Preamp→Tape→Channel Strip→Master Tape. This represents both the tracking session (Preamp→tape) and the mixing/mixdown session (Channel Strip→Master Tape.)

Do you have any recommendations between NoiseAsh NEED 73, 84, and 31102? Would actually be nice to get a good 31102 since UA never updated theirs.

[jamcat]

Do you have any recommendations between NoiseAsh NEED 73, 84, and 31102? Would actually be nice to get a good 31102 since UA never updated theirs.

They're all equally good as far as the modeling goes. I'm a bit conflicted on the NEED 31102, though, because it doesn't seem to include the "Nuance Deviation" palette for some reason that remains unknown to me. Of course UAD plugins don't have anything like that either.

I'm most familiar with the NEED 73, as 1073 models have become my goto. There really is some kind of 'magic' with the 1073 that easily imparts a natural clarity and definition, particularly when you bring in the EQ.

One thing that might throw you off at first is NoiseAsh gives you 2x mid-bands (probably their way of avoiding copyright claims.) They do that on both the 73 and the 31102. Also, they've adapted the preamp gain for ITB, so it's not a 1:1 model like UAD's MIC/LINE modes and oddly placed 1073 MIC OFF position.

[Uncle E]

Thanks! 73 it is!

[jamcat]

Thanks! 73 it is!

Well, I would really recommend demoing the entire NEED Preamp and EQ Collection first. You may like others better or equally. The 1084 pairs well with the 1073, as both were included on early '70s 80x8 consoles. The 1081 went on to replace both by the mid '70s.

If you want more than one or two of them, getting the whole bundle makes more sense. $150 for the bundle or $50 for each individually.

The Demo just mutes every 30 seconds. There's no time limit or demo license needed, and you can just authorize the demo after you purchase.

https://noiseash.com/downloads

[_leras]

Not everyone is doing electronic music.

Personally, I've found the mojo comes from many subtle layers at various points in the signal chain.

The 3 or 4 things that I find have the biggest positive impact are good preamp modeling, Brainworx TMT channel strips, Studio One Mix FX, and a tape machine emulation on the 2-buss.
So my full path is Preamp→Tape→Channel Strip→Master Tape. This represents both the tracking session (Preamp→tape) and the mixing/mixdown session (Channel Strip→Master Tape.)

You can replace 'electronic' music with 'any ITB production or mix'. Of course many top mixers are completely ITB these days.

I'm not sure this ITB summing adds very much. I think what you list, low level of saturation etc, will give a fair amount of incremental improvements during a mix.

TMT I'm not so sure about, seems to have some very minor and slightly random EQ differences from channel to channel... Not sure that it really adds anything overall.