Slate VMR releasing on Monday!

[YYR123]

Originally Posted by TOM@METRO

Will the insert position clearly say VCC, or will it mention the Rack. I need it to say VCC, or I will not use it.

I just need it to sound the same (or better)

[Righty27]

Originally Posted by SPA

My question is this. What is the difference between these two scenarios.

1. VCC is a standalone

You load VCC, and use it.

2. VCC is a module in VMR

You load VMR with VCC as default, and use it. In this case the VCC is not a rack, it's just a plugin as it is now.

I can tell you that on our side, the difference is several months of development and testing.

If you just want to use VCC, then all you would do is associate the "VMR" icon in your Pro Tools inserts as your console emulation. If you choose to buy more modules, then you have the added benefit of having your entire processing chain in one convenient interface. And as many beta guys will tell you, this 'rack' is way more slick than what you've experienced with other brands in the past.

However, if you don't like the rack concept, keep VCC as default module and use other plugins for the rest of your processing and it will be exactly as it is now.

Again, it's no different and I would hope that people could understand this.

Cheers,
Steven

Steven - thanks for reinforcing this and to be clear, like many here, I'm a fan of your team's work and own VCC, VTM and VBC.

In the scenarios you describe (including your explanation that backwards compatibility with VCC 1.0 sessions would be lost regardless), it all seems ideal. However, whilst I understand your logic and reasoning, some may still prefer the 'old' standalone approach over the renewed trend for racks.

As a hobbyist, I don't feel qualified to engage in a 'technical' debate to articulate why with an industry pro like yourself, but at the most basic level, it's a fundamental change to the plugin we all purchased, and which we were promised would be made available in AAX. I followed this topic on Gearslutz and remember this change being 'pitched' by you ... and while you put forward similar arguments, I believe support was mixed and the question was left in the air.

Some PT11 users will have written off their VCC 'investment' so I guess we may as well treat VCC in VMR as a 'new' plugin and give the new approach the benefit of the doubt ... but after the wait, it would have been nice to have not had another surprise.

Thanks again for coming by to 'face the music' in person ... as you are so renowned for doing!

[Drew Mazurek]

The rack concept, if it had a percent knob, would allow "blending" of console types and might be a big upgrade in options possibly.

How about that Steven? Will they have blend knobs?

[WorldStudios]

If there is no backward compatibility, I do not mind the new "shell" for vcc. It will offer added benefits as well.

My 1/20 usd.

[SPA]

Originally Posted by Drew Mazurek

The rack concept, if it had a percent knob, would allow "blending" of console types and might be a big upgrade in options possibly.

How about that Steven? Will they have blend knobs?

What an amazing idea Drew that I didn't even think about!

While not exactly a blend percent, with VCC in VMR, you will be able to create custom hybrid presets of several console modules, gain staged however you want with the new input/output.

So you'll be able to load the Brit 4k in slot one for a bit of mid forwardness, then drive the Brit N in slot 2 pretty heavy to get the fatness and crisp top end. Then you can put in the "B" section a different console signal path and compare. And becuase the CPU will be so low, a few chained modules will be less than one instance is now. I see a lot of people using the Brit N and 4k stacked, and this will make it quite easy.

But again, if you just want it the way it was, default VCC on slot one, and it will operate identically to what you have now.

Cheers,
Steven

[YYR123]

Originally Posted by SPA

And becuase the CPU will be so low, a few chained modules will be less than one instance is now.

Please make sure the final product is exactly this, Low CPU usage.

This and FG-X please

FGX is Sooo bad in just a small mastering session it is almost unusable.

[SPA]

Both plugins will be so drastically lower in CPU that you'll take down your Slate dart boards and start composing Slate love notes.

Cheers,
Steven

[YYR123]

Yes bring the goods to the table and the love of the universe will in no doubt return....no doubt

[Raoul23]

Can't really say I struggle with the CPU usage of FG-X but I do hear it distort sometimes when pushed, but I'm really looking forward to the new FG-X

[propower]

Can't seem to find it anywhere

So there is something new today or not??