Slate VMR updated to 1.0.10.4

[Drew Mazurek]

Keeping things inside the "rack" is what keeps the latency down to 0 samples. And apparently simplifies their coding and debugging process.

[TOM@METRO]

I'm sure they have their reasons for the rack, but the only reason I'm willing to put up with it is... it just sounds so good.

[Benny_Cha_Cha]

Anyone else hating the metering change to VCC? Not sure how I can use it without input metering. I hope they make it switchable in the next version. I really wanted the I/o split off from the group function too.

[SpinningDisk]

^+1

[mesaone]

I too have my own wish list and set of gripes. Although I am impressed with the "new" Slate. They're listening to (some) customers, and updates are coming out quickly so far. The success of VMR and all the associated positive feedback is probably what Steven needed.

[TOM@METRO]

Try using the included Trimmer before the VCC.. It can act as an input Meter.

[denka]

Originally Posted by TOM@METRO

I'm sure they have their reasons for the rack, but the only reason I'm willing to put up with it is... it just sounds so good.

I was strongly against racks but after VMR, nothing is the same. It really sound so good.

Adding a Trimmer was big plus.

[arche3]

I think I can mix with just slate and Sony plugs. That's it. Simple.

[jryser]

I'm missing something and not trying to sound snide - what is wrong with the rack concept and what would one do differently? I'm seriously just curios.

[mesaone]

waste of GUI space, insert slot doesn't reflect what is inserted or the order in which it is inserted, control surface mapping issues, can be a pain to find the correct parameters when enabling automation for controls on multiple modules. If it were up to me, each module would be a discrete plug-in.