Hey Craig,
 
I hate to go off topic on a thread that veers around like a drunk in heavy seas, but I remember your thread about SONAR's Console Emulation.  I usually don't use CE, but did on one song (kind of a ZZ top sounding thing) and CE was the perfect thing to glue it together, since the parts sounded disparate instead of a whole.  Worked like a charm.  I still don't use CE as a matter of course, but realize it is a valuable tool now that it accomplished what I couldn't otherwise.  I don't know if it does what an api or Neve console does here in my home studio - I don't have one to compare to.  I do know it fixed a song, and I do use it on certain tracks, just not all the time on everything.
 
Which is much like what the other Cake emulations do.  They are a tool.  I'd rather have hardware - but unless I had racks of stuff I couldn't get the sound I do w/ Cake PC.  And that is another thing - part of the charm of the 1176 sound, or LA2A was it highlighted important tracks.  It wasn't slathered on everything, simply because it was too expensive.  If you were lucky enough to have one, you put it on something other than the cowbell.  I've found it is sometimes good not to add much of anything, esp. compressors, to tracks (esp. finished loops).  Subtractive EQ to slot a loop or recording into the song, but I'm trying to only use comps where the is an obvious need.  Stuff like lead vocals, lead guitar, drum/guitar buss (there the SSL comp does make it sound like a genuine big studio effect).
 
@

There seems to be some persistent condescending snide cynical undertones being emphasized toward me that i wasn't expecting; not too sure what caused all that, but anyway, thanks for the links, i'll be sure to check those. I'm not very good at researching things, not my forte really, i just thought the Sonar forum would be the quickest place to find some heads-up on any links to info about the pro channel, and that people would be happy to oblige, short and sweet, not sure what all the other conundrum is about. It almost seems that some people in here work for the criminal profiling department of the FBI in tandem with paranoid psychiatrists. 
 
Most people were responding with comments effectively saying that no emulation can ever perfectly emulate a real-life counterpart, and that it's mostly ballpark stuff. Even Mr Anderton posted a reasonably lengthy post saying as much, therefore i drew what i deemed to be logical conclusions from those comments, but it all seemed to contrast Slate Digital's own statements about their emulations being nigh-on 'perfect'. I mean, is this following statement from Slate Digital not self explanatory... "We meticulously modelled the ENTIRE CIRCUIT PATH so that we could RECREATE EVERY SUBTLE NUANCE that makes these consoles the legends that they are, says Slate."
 
I said earlier on that Cubase and Sonar are my favourite DAWs, no more need be said i reckon. Why would anyone think i don't use Sonar?

LA2A
I mean, is this following statement from Slate Digital not self explanatory... "We meticulously modelled the ENTIRE CIRCUIT PATH so that we could RECREATE EVERY SUBTLE NUANCE that makes these consoles the legends that they are, says Slate."

Wow that's great. Is this offer available in the shops? Do I get a free gift with it? BTW Does it have crackling pots, the dope that's fallen through the faders, the sprinklings of cocaine on top of the VU meters, the hiss when all the faders were turned up to 11, the engineer who understood the desk inside out, the blood of junkies over the master bus, the crackle of patch chords that weren't cleaned in braso? The smell of vomit purified by angels drowning in whale tears? THE TALENT BUTTON.

If you can emulate that I'm in.

I'm the one who called it ball-park stuff, and I stand by it, although it's a vague term in itself. For the reasons Craig stated, it is simply impossible and futile to emulate a single console 1:1. Slate didn't do that either, no matter how you interpret their marketing speak.

Let's just say you would have gotten pretty much the same answers if you had asked this question about VCC.

Ummm, Mr Anderton, i notice you have 'hyper-focused' on nearly every word of every context of every point in my posts, and then in reply interpreted my posts to mean only what you wanted them to mean quite apart from what they actually meant, and then you ultilized your interpretations of my words to form what appears to be a misplaced rebuke and rebuttal; i just want to know what your point is and i want it spelt-out clearly, are you up for that? Put your cards face-up on the table mate! Like me! Just keep it simple, you have plainly said words to the effect that the pro channel is not an accurate emulation of the hardware and that no emulation ever will be; chime in anyone, and tell me if i misread Mr Anderton's verbose replies.
 
I see more of what i deem would constitute false accusation and misconstruing of my statements, and that is what i don't appreciate Mr Anderton! You know perfectly well that nearly every post in reply to me in this thread basically stated that the pro channel is not an accurate emulation, and even that any emulation never will be accurate, as did yourself, do i need to cut&paste the words from those posts? Geeezz, I drew a clear common sense conclusion, and then you say something to the effect that i drew false conclusions; so does that mean you all said... "Yes! The pro channel is an accurate emulation" Which is it Mr Anderton? Tell me! Have you made-up your mind yet? Is the pro channel accurate or not? Just tell me in plain words right here, i'd like to hear your plain and simple answer!
Clearly the consensus in here is that NO! The pro console is not an 100% accurate emulation. You Mr Anderton were saying that i drew this perception of the general consensus wrongly, and yet CAN YOU SHOW ME ONE REPLY THAT SAID THE PRO CHANNEL 'IS' AN ACCURATE EMULATION? No you can't! And that's because THE GENERAL CONSENSUS WAS EXACTLY AS I STATED!! 
 
Why did you interpret my words falsely? Your replies seem quite extraneous to the initial enquiry of my opening post. I can confidently say that the VCC collection is indistinguishable form the real-life counter parts, and no more different than the differences between the actual real-life analog units of the same mixing desk; i'll happily be on record as saying there is very little if any discernable difference between the VCC collection and the real-life componentry they emulate, so Slate Digital has indeed succeeded in producing an 'accurate' emulation, only God himself could do better, and that's saying something!
 
Tell us Mr Anderton what you said in your review of the Slate Digital emulations, would you care to do that?
 
The quoted words from Slate Digital's website... "Recreate EVERY SUBTLE NUANCE" are the words of Stephen Slate himself, not the marketing department, so Mr Anderton, you're making more false claims.
 
Any while i'm here, what part of "Recreate EVERY SUBTLE NUANCE" DIDN'T YOU UNDERSTAND? Opps, i forgot, those were the 'lies' of the marketing department.
 
Don't play word games with me Mr Anderton! You've managed to misconstrue an entirely innocent post into something more akin to a subversive conspiracy on my part. Where the hell did that come from? 
 
 
 
 

Jim Roseberry

LA2A
I mean, is this following statement from Slate Digital not self explanatory... "We meticulously modelled the ENTIRE CIRCUIT PATH so that we could RECREATE EVERY SUBTLE NUANCE that makes these consoles the legends that they are, says Slate."

Slate makes some great things...
But... "subtle" isn't exactly his style. 
Watch the Raven demo videos for a dose of the "dramatic".  
You're accepting marketing verbiage as 100% truth (from Slate).
 

Well, he's... enthusiastic, shall we say. I quite like the guy though, and I don't think I've ever seen him claim anything that was actually false. Sure, he does a bit of showbiz in how he sells his stuff. But there's nothing wrong with that. Slate make good stuff, and he talks about it like it's good stuff. Fair enough.
 
Their methodology is as he describes, which is component-level modelling. So they're not simply replicating the results of a bit of gear, they're emulating the individual parts of that gear and putting those emulations together. Which is all very clever. How much difference it really makes is up for debate, mind you.
 
 

Nobody's said he isn't.

I am beginning to believe more and more he works in marketing or extremely naieve. Sadly LA is really showing his lack of experience in such matters. I suspect he has never touched a console in his life. Sound engineering is NOT a game of top trumps, nor is marketing (which is mainly based on lies or exaggerated truths). The more he posts the more I'm not interested in the products he is peddling which may or may not be genuinely quite good. He does not realise the end product and good workflow is what matters not your tools. Anything can be accomplished in just about any software or hardware if you put your mind to it.

Bored now...

And yes, I do love the sound of a '59 humbucker in the bridge of a LesPaul.
More "hair" than the BurstBucker Pro
But alas, the BurstBucker Pro has more "detail/air"
I like them both...  
 
Sorry for derailing the thread.
I'm good at that sometimes...

LA2A
Ummm, Mr Anderton, i notice you have 'hyper-focused' on nearly every word of every context of every point in my posts, and then in reply interpreted my posts to mean only what you wanted them to mean quite apart from what they actually meant

 
I can only go by your words. If they do not accurately convey what you mean, there's not much I can do about that.
 

i just want to know what your point is and i want it spelt-out clearly, are you up for that? Put your cards face-up on the table mate! Like me! Just keep it simple

 
I have explained my point in great detail. I will summarize at the end, and I will try to make it as simple as humanly possible.
 

you have plainly said words to the effect that the pro channel is not an accurate emulation of the hardware and that no emulation ever will be; chime in anyone, and tell me if i misread Mr Anderton's verbose replies.

 
You have combined two unrelated topics.
 
Topic 1: I NEVER said the Pro Channel is not an accurate emulation of the hardware. I said: "I'm not going to have a frickin' console shipped here just to see if Cakewalk came within 80% or 95% or 97.32456% of 'a real thing.'" In other words, I don't know. However...
 
Topic 2: No emulation will ever be 100% accurate because there are too many variables. If Cakewalk, Waves, Slate, or anyone comes with 95%, AFAIC that's excellent. But I'll never know, because I won't have the consoles here to do a comparison.
 
The reason why my replies are verbose is because you say so much that is wrong and/or needs correction. If you weren't disingenuous, my replies would be very short. So, let's keep it simple.
 
Pop Quiz #1: Everyone here who has compared the consoles emulated with the ProChannel with the emulations, raise your hand.
 
No one?
 
Okay. Then it's no wonder everyone here is honest enough not to make claims about the accuracy of the emulation.
 
Pop Quiz #2: Everyone here who has compared the consoles emulated with Slate's VCC with the emulations, raise your hand.
 
No one?
 
Interesting. You claim that Slate emulates every nuance of the consoles perfectly, but I didn't see you raise your hand. And I can tell you right now that VCC does not emulate "every nuance" of the consoles perfectly, because it doesn't include any of the processors in the channel strip, like EQ or dynamics.
 
I would be the last person to diss Steven Slate's work. I see him at trade shows, I like him as a person, I identified him years ago as a rising star in the industry, and I've given him a lot of coverage when I was doing magazines and Harmony Central. I would not say anything negative about Steven or his products, because I think he's committed to advancing the state of the art. (If he put out a crap product I would say something negative, but that hasn't happened.) I would expect him to be proud of his work, and present it in the most favorable terms.
 
So try this out: As the designer of the Quadrafuzz, I will tell you that upon its introduction it was the most sophisticated distortion product ever created for the electric guitar, using technology based on distortion elements with junction capacitance that I have discussed with someone of no less stature than Tom Scholz. Its use of multiband frequency separation made it the undisputed innovator in distortion devices when introduced, and its design has since been adopted in Steinberg's Quadrafuzz emulation, iZotope's Trash, and various other products.
 
Many, if not most, people would agree with that. So, go to all the forums from manufacturers that make distortion devices, present that as the truth, question the truthfulness of any claims they make about their products but not the claims I've made, and see what response you get. You'll probably be ridiculed, banned, and have your thread deleted.
 
Your first post here IIRC was to link to KVR's DAW survey with your conclusion that Reaper, Studio One, and Cubase "take the Cake." Then you come in here and hype a product, diss Cakewalk's equivalent product, and misrepresent what the community said after sincerely trying to help you.
 
I've been moderating internet forums for musicians since 1995, and you have all the earmarks of a troll - especially the low post count, and starting topics designed to present the host in an unfavorable light. However, over the course of your subsequent posts, I will admit my initial assessment may have been wrong, and you may simply be a naive purveyor of drama, which I find less objectionable.
 

You know perfectly well that nearly every post in reply to me in this thread basically stated that the pro channel is not an accurate emulation

 
Please refer back to Pop Quiz #1.
 

I drew a clear common sense conclusion

 
People not claiming something is accurate is not the same as claiming something is inaccurate. For example I like VCC but I would NEVER claim the emulations are accurate because I have not tested them myself against the consoles. From that, according to your "logic," I am saying the VCC is not an accurate emulation. With all due respect, if that's what you consider a common sense conclusion, you really, really need to take a course in logic (with a particular emphasis on avoiding logical fallacies).
 

Have you made-up your mind yet? Is the pro channel accurate or not? Just tell me in plain words right here, i'd like to hear your plain and simple answer!

 
You mean, you'd like to hear it again: "I'm not going to have a frickin' console shipped here just to see if Cakewalk came within 80% or 95% or 97.32456% of 'a real thing.'" Since that apparently wasn't simple enough for you, here's a plain and simple answer I hope you can understand:
 
I can't make any conclusive statement regarding the accuracy of any emulation unless I have the physical device being emulated, the emulation, and a bunch of test equipment.
 

I can confidently say that the VCC collection is indistinguishable form the real-life counter parts, and no more different than the differences between the actual real-life analog units of the same mixing desk; i'll happily be on record as saying there is very little if any discernable difference between the VCC collection and the real-life componentry they emulate, so Slate Digital has indeed succeeded in producing an 'accurate' emulation, only God himself could do better, and that's saying something!

 
You never described the tests you did to come to that conclusion. Until you do, you are not worth my time.
 

Tell us Mr Anderton what you said in your review of the Slate Digital emulations, would you care to do that?

 
It's a matter of public record. I write for magazines. Read the articles. Or read the Sound on Sound review, my conclusions were pretty much the same.
 

Any while i'm here, what part of "Recreate EVERY SUBTLE NUANCE" DIDN'T YOU UNDERSTAND? Opps, i forgot, those were the 'lies' of the marketing department.

 
Show me ONE place where I referred to the marketing department as saying "lies." Just one. If you can't, I expect an apology. For the record, I said: "Comparing nuanced statements from users to absolute statements by a marketing department is probably not the best way to determine the reality of a situation."
 

Don't play word games with me Mr Anderton! You've managed to misconstrue an entirely innocent post into something more akin to a subversive conspiracy on my part. Where the hell did that come from?

 
From your inability to answer my questions, your mischaracterization of the community's opinion, your lack of any contribution of merit, your being too lazy to do any research prior to dissing Cakewalk, and your overall level of dishonesty. Since you don't like verbosity, we can leave it at that.
 
Here's your homework assignment if you expect me to spend any more time on you:
 
1. Describe the tests you conducted to determine that "I can confidently say that the VCC collection is indistinguishable form the real-life counter parts, and no more different than the differences between the actual real-life analog units of the same mixing desk; i'll happily be on record as saying there is very little if any discernable difference between the VCC collection and the real-life componentry they emulate, so Slate Digital has indeed succeeded in producing an 'accurate' emulation, only God himself could do better, and that's saying something!"
 
2. Show me where I characterized any statements made by Slate (even though I was giving more general advice and did not mention the company specifically) as lies.
 
Until then, you have no credibility. And I were with Slate, I'd be embarrassed to have you making claims for the brand. They're a quality brand; they deserve quality posts.
 

Let it go Mike, it's the internet.

CakeAlexS
@LA2A perhaps you would be interested in one of these, worth the money I would get out your credit card now:
http://www.theabsolutesou...digital-interconnects/

Wow. Do you think if I used one of those high-end audiophile USB cables to hook up a printer its resolution would improve? Or how about an external back-up drive? Surely the 1s and 0s being backed up would benefit from arriving at the drive as so much better quality, tonally balanced 1s and 0s?

Me, I think the Belkin ones are overpriced.....

I really do wonder how the manufacturers of such snake-oil have the nerve to make the claims they do. Not to mention the reviewers who praise the stuff.

Remind me to never get into a fight with Craig.

 
I've been away for a few days, but this thread was a great way to return !  This is one of the best threads I've read in a long time.  It's gone from a good first question, the legitimacy of which I don't think anyone can argue, into all sorts of great directions...

Sidroe :
"I spent most of my playing career standing in front of 1 and sometimes 2 Marshall Super Lead 100 watt stacks. As stated before, playing auditoriums, ball parks, etc. with no mic in the p.a.. Pure brutal volume. You had to stand off to the side a little to escape the ear-bleeding pressure levels!"

I really envy you your experience, but not your hearing loss !  What I'd give to buy you a beer or three...

tlw :
"I also just happen to find it easiest to get a good guitar sound by micing a low wattage class A amp or even plugging in a Sansamp than spending ages tweaking the gain staging of an interface/Sonar channel/amp-sim chain."

Yes.  Analog is a physical reality that you can interact with and it responds.  And each instance is unique.  No way you can model that in the virtual.

@:
"And that is another thing - part of the charm of the 1176 sound, or LA2A was it highlighted important tracks.  It wasn't slathered on everything, simply because it was too expensive.  If you were lucky enough to have one, you put it on something other than the cowbell."

!!  Love it.

CakeAlexS :
"BTW Does it have crackling pots, the dope that's fallen through the faders, the sprinklings of cocaine on top of the VU meters, the hiss when all the faders were turned up to 11, the engineer who understood the desk inside out, the blood of junkies over the master bus, the crackle of patch chords that weren't cleaned in braso?"

Getting close to the answer...

LA2A :
"Any while i'm here, what part of "Recreate EVERY SUBTLE NUANCE" DIDN'T YOU UNDERSTAND? Opps, i forgot, those were the 'lies' of the marketing department."

Do you really believe that phrase ?  Doesn't it ring slightly optimistic ?

Jim Roseberry :
"After the better part of 30 years using samples/models of various instruments and hardware, I'm pretty confident in the statement that, "An emulation/model will *never* offer the same exact experience as the original."
If you need 100% faithful, nothing beats the original."

The conclusion !

As I said, a great thread...