VCC, VTM, Blah, Blah, Blah...What The Hell Is Wrong With Me?

[wagtunes]

I am truly at the end of my rope with this stuff.

Here's the only thing I agree with that I heard today. Music coming out of a DAW sounds clean and sterile. I don't heat that sound that I hear from old 60s and 70s recordings. There is nothing clean about them and I love that sound.

Okay, so I started looking into virtual consoles and tape machines, primarily to get THAT sound. And I've been doing this research for a long time. In fact, I do have one virtual tape machine, Kramer. It took me a while to get the hang of it in order to get it to sound "dirty" without sounding so dirty that the mix turns into a train wreck because if you crank up the settings it can get brutal.

So today I started looking into Slate Digital because I read some comments about them that made me interested enough to check them out. And I did.

And I listened to demos and tutorials and on and on.

The last one, done by Steven Slate himself, had him mixing a 80s style pop/rock song using VCC and VTM. He had many instances of each on the many tracks of this song.

He then played the song with all instances bypassed and then on.

I was expecting to hear this huge difference as he described it as warm, fat, spacious, and whatever else he said.

What did I hear?

Almost nothing.

I heard maybe a very slight volume change with all the plugins enabled.

What the hell is wrong with me? Am I THAT deaf? I mean I can hear the difference between recordings when one is really clean and digital and one is noisy and dirty and obviously analog. So why is it when he enables all these plugins that are supposed to turn this mix from a clean, sterile whatever into a fat, warm, vibrant, big, whatever, I hear almost nothing?

I do have plugins that DO make a difference when I put them on my tracks. In fact, I just finished a song where I really think I overdid it with some of the "sweetening" because the vocals on it almost sound shrilly. But at least I can tell these plugs are working.

But here? He might as well have been just saying he was bypassing and turning on and not really doing anything.

Is it JUST me? I did read a few comments of people who couldn't hear anything either. But most people are like "Wow, that was amazing! What a difference!"

And yes, I'm listening in an excellent environment. That's not the problem. Granted, I listening on YouTube and maybe that's part of the problem. I do know that uploading my own stuff to YouTube kills a lot of it dead. But shouldn't I still hear SOMETHING?

If somebody can shed some light on why, for so many of these plugins, I hear almost no difference, I'd be really grateful. Because I've finally reached the end of my rope with this stuff.

[dusted william]

I can hear a difference, a slight difference with VTM. It's really a nice glue.

[Liero]

I do music production for a living as a composer, in an environment that could at the very least be called semi-pro (Genelec 8050's in a 3/4 treated room) and I run into this same thing all the time. And have done so with Slate marketing stuff. I do notice a difference but it's extremely rare that I go "That is WAY better!" - mostly I go "That sounds slightly different".

I don't think Slate's plugins themselves are super subtle, at least not the preamp saturators or even the tape stuff if you just crank them all the way, but the way they're used in marketing videos is fairly conservative.

If you're looking for that 60's sound, the biggest pitfall with trying to achieve that today is probably in the drums. The trick is to use almost exclusively overhead or room mics for the entire kit and then compress and tube saturate through multiple stages.

[ATN69]

It's kind of ironic that in the 80's when I was in my late teens everyone in the industry spent ton's of money on hardware that could clean up mixes, remove tape saturation, noise, etc. In this day and age everyone want to get back to the dirty by adding saturation

I agree with you Steven and some times I can't hear any difference but we all want to believe. Countless of times I heard the comments, "this plugins gives a subtle change ...bla bla bla", and I didn't hear any difference what so ever.

Tape saturation is however very subtle in its nature. In the case of tape distortion or tape saturation (as it really is) I would say that if you clearly can hear it then you went too far with it. Using the written language trying to describe these things is almost impossible without sounding like a pot smoker, but I would say that tape saturation is one of those things you should feel and not hear, if you get my point.

[Liero]

Tape saturation is however very subtle in its nature. In the case of tape distortion or tape saturation (as it really is) I would say that if you clearly can hear it then you went too far with it.

I respectfully disagree with this statement. Some sounds are all about just abusing the tape's saturation properties - there's no right or wrong. I do agree that for example in a mastering context tape is, naturally, used very carefully. Mostly as a subtle "glue".

[camsr]

Most of the charm of "tape" IMO comes from the diminished treble power. I must be getting old to enjoy hicut filters. The saturation should make up for some of that cut by distorting it and adding that density that's associated with tape.

[ATN69]

Tape saturation is however very subtle in its nature. In the case of tape distortion or tape saturation (as it really is) I would say that if you clearly can hear it then you went too far with it.

I respectfully disagree with this statement. Some sounds are all about just abusing the tape's saturation properties - there's no right or wrong. I do agree that for example in a mastering context tape is, naturally, used very carefully. Mostly as a subtle "glue".

Well, if you ever worked back in the old days with real tape recorders you did your darn best to minimize tape saturation in the first place. So if your aim is to get back to a sound as it was back then you should not go over board with it. That's my point. I agree there is no right or wrong per say. If you want tape saturation and you want it to be very noticeable, then go right ahead.

[Liero]

Tape saturation is however very subtle in its nature. In the case of tape distortion or tape saturation (as it really is) I would say that if you clearly can hear it then you went too far with it.

I respectfully disagree with this statement. Some sounds are all about just abusing the tape's saturation properties - there's no right or wrong. I do agree that for example in a mastering context tape is, naturally, used very carefully. Mostly as a subtle "glue".

Well, if you ever worked back in the old days with real tape recorders you did your darn best to minimize tape saturation in the first place. So if your aim is to get back to a sound as it was back then you should not go over board with it. That's my point. I agree there is no right or wrong per say. If you want tape saturation and you want it to be very noticeable, then go right ahead.

Yes, agreed.

60s-70s: people trying to minimize noise and distortion with analog gear.
80s-90s: people trying to minimize noise and distortion with digital gear.
00s-10s people trying to add noise and distortion with any means available.

[Robmobius]

The Slate stuff is very good... But there are plenty of other good plugins out there that can do the same thing.

The ONLY reasons I'm selling all my Slate stuff is that I hate their so over the top marketing crap and the way they are trying to push everyone now into their new subscription model. No thanks! A sub is not for me...

[Liero]

The Slate stuff is very good... But there are plenty of other good plugins out there that can do the same thing.

The ONLY reasons I'm selling all my Slate stuff is that I hate their so over the top marketing crap and the way they are trying to push everyone now into their new subscription model. No thanks! A sub is not for me...

I don't think the OP was wondering whether Slate plugins were good or bad - I think he meant to ask if others had the experience of not hearing differences in plugins and plugin marketing demos.

[Robmobius]

The Slate stuff is very good... But there are plenty of other good plugins out there that can do the same thing.

The ONLY reasons I'm selling all my Slate stuff is that I hate their so over the top marketing crap and the way they are trying to push everyone now into their new subscription model. No thanks! A sub is not for me...

I don't think the OP was wondering whether Slate plugins were good or bad - I think he meant to ask if others had the experience of not hearing differences in plugins and plugin marketing demos.

Ah... Right. Silly me...

Well in that case, most definitely! Although, if you're watching stuff on YT, etc. then the comparisons are likely to be a bit lackluster considering the lossy format.

But I've definitely heard the very little improvement on certain demos.

[funky lime]

I think most of the "warmth" comes from the actual tracking, with lots of air moving through a unique space into a variety of microphones, each with their own unique charm. You can distort (or saturate) a clean signal, but it won't make it any "warmer," only more distorted. Even the most accurate "analog" emulations can't replicate that moving air, if you're working strictly in the box, nor is that what they are intended to do.

Source material is key. Plugins will always sound "digital" (whatever that really means) because that is exactly what they are. Try not to use pristine, close-miked samples for everything. The sound needs to breathe.

Gain staging is also important, I guess; some emulation-style plugins want audio at a certain ideal level (-18 dbFS, for instance) in order to hit that sweet spot. Hit them too hard, and they'll distort. Hit them too quiet, and you won't get any mojo.

I don't have "golden ears" or nice monitors, and my room is probably over-treated. 9 times out of 10, I can't tell you the difference between ReaEQ and, for instance, a Slate EQ (with its Advanced Custom Hand-Crafted Bespoke Hyper-Modern Algorithms) in terms of sound quality, in a blind test. The curves have much more of an impact than the "analog mojo" in my opinion, at least on an EQ.

[Aloysius]

If you want dirt, try getting it right at the source, instead of always messing about with plug-ins.

For example, PastToFutureSamples 60s Surf Drums. These are filthy dirty.



http://gumroad.com/pasttofuturesamples#

[prene]

Plugins won’t do it. It’s all front end. Even old Mackie 1202 vlz pro gave me dirt and I’m a 90’s hip hop fanatic with bob Marley legend and Pink Floyd dark side of the moon being my favorite albums.

So I have been amassing soon good analog and some trash units but they have that sonic texture. In the digital world NEBULA is getting me closer and closer.

[Local Man]

I'm not against these kinds of plugins in general but they really don't due what they claim or intend to do (make it sound like your tracks are actually going through a console or onto tape). In my experience they go from too subtle to too muddy in the blink of an eye.
The bottom line is that if you want to make old music you really need to use old gear.
My advice? Make new music!