This is what I learned from this thread:
- The community likes the Prochannel modules
- The community likes Slate Digital's products
- The community has developed a dislike for LA2A (the poster, not the hardware)
- So many members of the community are totally kicka$$

I don't think we dislike LA2A. We just don't trust him. It's very odd for a person to come outbof the blue and post nothing but posts that are very troll like. Most new posters tend to be seeking help. This person comes with loaded questions that seem geared towards hyping other products.

The quote functions in this forum seem quite obtuse and elusive compared to the straightforward methodologies in other forums, so i will have to improvise and do it all manually until i can figure it out some other time.
 
 
Seeing as how Mr Anderton seems to be in the habit of breaking-down every sentence of my posts in order to attempt rebuttal, i will do the same to him and see if he likes his own medicine. While i'm here, i'll see if i can out-do him on his verbosity...
 
Mr Anderton said... "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."
 
my response - my words have conveyed exactly what i wanted them to mean all along, so this is a pointless statement from you, like nearly everything you have said in all your posts thus far.
 
Mr Anderton said "I have explained my point in great detail."
 
my response - and would you care to show me that GREAT DETAIL, where is it? 
 
I myself have stated in one of my replies to Mr Anderton that- "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."
 
Mr Anderton replied - "You have combined two unrelated topics."
 
my response - there was no topic involved, it was merely a statement summarizing the content in your posted replies combined with an invitation for anyone to take the opportunity to show me i was wrong.
 
 
Mr Anderton said - "Topic 1: I NEVER said the Pro Channel IS NOT an accurate emulation of the hardware. In other words, I don't know."
 
my response - it appears you are point-blank contradicting yourself Mr Anderton, here is what Mr Anderton said "Besides, NO EMULATION of an analog device will EVER be 100% the same; there are too many variables"  
 
So, thus why i rightly asked in my earlier post for Mr Anderton to make-up his mind and tell us plainly because he also said..."I NEVER said the Pro Channel IS NOT an accurate emulation of the hardware"
 

Mr Anderton has said he'll never know, because he doesn't have the actual hardware mixing desks in front of him.
You haven't taken the time to verify Slate Digital's claims, and yet you still dare to make adamant claims against Slate Digital's own proclamations that they recreated EVERY SUBTLE NUANCE. EVERY means EVERY, SUBTLE means SUBTLE, and NUANCE means NUANCE, quite self-evident i would have thought. 
 
Mr Anderton said - "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."
 
I'll make it simple for you shall I? Here is the official dictionary definition of "disingenuous" (Not straightforward or truthful; insincere or calculating, lacking in frankness). Anyone in here can easily see that i HAVE BEEN NOTHING BUT FRANK, STRAIGHTFORWARD AND SINCERE, there is no doubt about that... so, Mr Anderton has been deliberately misrepresenting me, and making FALSE STATEMENTS, and trying to paint me in a bad light just to make himself look good.
 
 
Mr Anderton said - "interesting. You claim that Slate emulates every nuance of the consoles perfectly"
 
my response - well actually Slate Digital made that claim, so your slur is on them, not on me. "EVERY subtle nuance"
 
Mr Anderton said - 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.
 
my response - Slate Digital did not set-out to emulate the compressor or EQ in the channel strip, so it is you that is being disingenuous (Google definition of disingenuous - not frank or sincere, typically by pretending that one knows less about something than one really does.) Everyone knows i have made clear that i was referring to "THAT SOUND" of the mixing desks, i never once referred to EQ or dynamics, they are supplementary processors and audio tools to which i have never made any reference.
 
 
Mr Anderton said - "I would not say anything negative about Steven or his products, I would expect him to be proud of his work, and present it in the most favorable terms."
 
my response - And yet by claiming the statement of Slate Digital "Recreate EVERY subtle nuance" is purely marketing hype or a deliberate exaggeration from his marketing department, is effectively saying Stephen is a liar and trying to deceive us; because you know as well as me that Stephen knows EXACTLY WHAT IS WRITTEN ON HIS OWN WEBSITE! You are essentially calling him a deceptive liar. Stephen himself has approved that very statement because that is what HE WANTED TO PROCLAIM! But then you have said "And I can tell you right now that VCC does not emulate "every nuance" of the consoles perfectly" Thus 'effectively' calling him a liar; you have indeed made a very negative statement against him and thereby defamed his character.
 
 
Mr Anderton said - "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"
 
my response - firstly, my op and any subsequent posts made no allusion whatsoever to any claims made by Cakewalk! Secondly there has been no mention by me of any sort referring to any claims of truthfulness by Cakewalk! My op is self-evident, the nature of my op is self-evident; you have indeed twisted out-of-context and misconstrued the entire context of my op, and additionally used that twisted context to slur my sincere query, but actually dared to call me disingenuous several times, anyone can see that, despite the fact that any honest person in here can see that is not the case in the slightest.
 
Mr Anderton said - "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."
 
my response - if the truth is the truth that Slate Digital achieved their goal, and i simply made people aware of Slate Digital's own claims, then how does that constitute hype??? Secondly, please quote me from any of my posts where i dissed Cakewalk's pro channel, show everyone here in your next reply, quote me and SHOW THEM, and if you can't, then you have dissed me, misrepresnted me, defamed me, disparaged me, and slurred me, and so ACTUALLY YOU NEED TO APOLOGISE. Are you man enough to do that, to admit your false allegations against me? 
 
Mr Anderton said - "I've been moderating internet forums for musicians since 1995, and you have all the earmarks of a troll. However, over the course of your subsequent posts, I will admit my initial assessment may have been wrong.
 
my response - well i think the end of Mr Andertons statement says it all.
 
Mr Anderton said - and starting topics designed to present the host in an unfavorable light.
 
my response - anyone here i exhort to go read my op again, and see for yourself is Mr Anderton's accusation about my motives is way off the mark!
 
Mr Anderton said - "I like the 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)."
 
my response - ah ha, like the logical fallacy where you have totally contradicted yourself with this statement > "No emulation will ever be 100% accurate because there are too many variables."
And then you used this self-contradiction on your part to denigrate me. Lets have a look again? In the previous statement you said... "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" 
OK people, here is my course in logic... Mr Anderton's own statement has totally contradicted himself, here's the direct quote of Mr Andertons own words "No emulation will ever be 100% accurate because there are too many variables." but previously he had said>"From that, according to your "logic," I am saying the VCC IS NOT AN ACCURATE EMULATION." He then says... "IF THAT'S WHAT YOU CONSIDER A COMMON SENSE CONCLUSION, you really, really need to take a course in logic" 
 
Ummm, it seems you yourself need to take that course in logic Mr Anderton, with a big emphasis on avoiding LOGICAL FALLACIES 
 
Mr Anderton said "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."
 
my response - Slate Digital has already done all the comparisons during production of their emulations and subsequently made their proclamation clear. So why would i need to see any results of any comparisons done by you? I never asked you to do a comparison, i don't need you to, the work that went into making Slate Digital's emulations and the end-result speaks for itself, they have verified it, i don't need you to verify it, any comparison you make pales into insignificance after all the tedious painstaking work that Slate Digital has already done, so, in your own words Mr Anderton "Until you do, you are not worth my time."
 
 
Mr Anderton said - Show me ONE place where I referred to the marketing department as saying "lies." Just one. If you can't, I expect an apology. 
 
my response - The marketing department has stated that Slate Digital "Recreated EVERY subtle nuance", correct? Therefore anyone with more than half a brain-cell can see this statement is asserting that they have achieved a 1:1 emulation, but Mr Anderton has said basically that this is just marketing embellishment or exaggeration, THEREBY CALLING THEM LIARS!

Mr Anderton said - "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."
 
my response - For starters, where have i been dishonest?? Show everyone please. Actually, it seems you are talking about yourself here Mr Anderton. Anyway, you say i have mischaracterized the communities opinion, well, here i will show yet ANOTHER false statement against me. Here are some reply posts immediately after my op...
 
By BJN - "From my own experience the sound of hardware is rarely reproduced by plugin emulations just by the very nature one is electrical voltages the other zeros and ones."
By Sanderexpander - "I would say ALL OF THEM are "ballpark" ones"
By AT - "For, me, where emulations start to “FAIL” in comparison to analog hardware is tonal response. Software is no longer simply putting a patina of color from hardware over the digitally compressed sound, the patina actually changes, but it still doesn't impart the analog responses in all their subtlety."
By tlw - "As for claims on the internet that software X is a spot-on emulation of analogue hardware Y, I'd regard any such claims as doubtful."
By sidroe – "NO! Amp sims ARE NOT going to re-create that hurricane of sound! It is to try to give you the GENERAL IMPRESSION of a MICED cab. No amp sounds as big in the studio as it does out in the trenches"
By John T - "It's nonsense for anyone to claim they've made the One Perfect Emulation."
By melmyers - "As a matter of fact, I've seen videos and interviews with industry professionals who have said that certain plugin's don't sound exactly like the hardware modeled"
By Mr anderton - "Besides, no emulation of an analog device will ever be 100% the same; there are too many variables"
 
You see people, it seems Mr Anderton resorts to false statements simply to condescend and vilify me, and for what reason? I think it should be obvious if anyone thought about it carefully enough.
 
Mr Anderton said - "your being too lazy to do any research prior to dissing Cakewalk"
 
my response - 1: Where did i diss Cakewalk??????? 2: You yourself haven't done any research before making your statements to dispel Slate Digital's claims!
It seems that you Mr Anderton are guilty of everything you have been falsely accusing me of.
 
So Mr Anderton, 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 Slate Digital's claims of meticulously recreating EVERY subtle nuance, is false.
 
2. Show me where I characterized disrespectfully any statements made by Cakewalk. 
 
So, "to use your own words Mr Anderton, Until then, you have no credibility. And if I were with Slate, I'd be embarrassed to have you talking trash about their marketing department, which as we all know consulted Stephen anyway for the claims he wished to state. Slate Digital deserve quality posts, not all these misnomer allegations you've dreamed-up!.
 
Mr anderton said - “I haven't tested the non-linearities between channels (which gives the extra sense of space and definition)”
 
my response - Well then, but actually when the VCC etc is inserted into a mixer channel, that's 'EXACTLY' what happens, so anecdotal evidence alone proves the authenticity of Stephen Slate's claims. His plugins were tested side by side with the original hardware with multiple dedicated professional listeners and audio experts, and when the VCC algorithms were finished, these people could hear VERY LITTLE DISCERNIBLE DIFFERENCE when running the Slate plugins side by side with the hardware counterpart. So Mr Anderton is saying that either they are liars, or that they don't have trustworthy ears, which I don't think Mr Anderton is in any position to assert.
 
Mr Anderton said - “I know the characteristics that analog mixers can impart to a sound. I reviewed the VCC and gave it a favorable review precisely because I know these things.”
 
my response - So, Mr Anderton has stated in favour of Slate Digital's plugins because apparently HE KNOWS THESE THINGS - relating to the intrinsic characteristics of analog mixing desks etc - but apparently what Slate Digital said about the accuracy of their plugins is all 'promotional marketing stuff'; so, as I rightly stated in one of my previous posts, why don't you make-up your mind Mr Anderton? Why do you contradict yourself just to diss me in this thread!
Mr Anderton is saying that Slate Digital is being deliberately misleading, so Mr Anderton's statement can only be taken as saying that the marketing speel is a lie and or mere exaggeration! As he said himself as follows...“Quoting advertising copy or press releases is not exactly revealing anything”
So, thereby he is suggesting that Slate Digital is trying to pull a blindfold over our eyes via the marketing department. And Mr Anderton also said this... “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. Tell me Mr Anderton, do you believe the statements of Slate Digital or not? If you do believe them, then end of conversation, but if you don't believe them, then you're effectively calling them liars, it's as simple as that! Further, you are calling Stephen Slate a liar because by your statement apparently he is party to 'false' or 'exaggerated' statements from the marketing department, and what's more, Mr Anderton is also asserting that Stephen Slate either has no idea what has been stated on his own website (which we know is not true), or simply that Stephen Slate told the marketing department to 'say whatever they like' thereby inferring that Stephen Slate is attempting to deceive potential customers.
Therefore Mr Anderton's statement to me that... “I will concede that you have a firm understanding of hyperbole and reductio ad absurdum”... Clearly shows him to be speaking about himself, and In particular, his own hyperbole and absurd self contradictions.
 
In summary...
- 1: We know that Slate Digital had the ORIGINAL HARDWARE IN FRONT OF THEM for months on-end when producing their plugins<fact one
- 2: Extensive A/B comparisons by trained ears were done during the course of developing the emulations<fact two
- 3: Slate Digital to certify the end result as being nigh-on indistinguishable from the original hardware – emulated the affects of crosstalk, transformers, distortion, harmonics, op-amps, everything; side by side it is nign-on impossible in a blind test to tell them apart, as Slate Digital says “To recreate EVERY SUBTLE NUANCE"<fact three
- 4: It is known that Stephen Slate went to stupendous extents to achieve his goal, and refused to release his final plugins until they were what he deemed nigh-on perfect, minor differences between each real-life unit excepted of course.<fact four

so dubdisciple chimes-in and adds to all the misnomers! Let's say it properly shall we...
 
This is some hardcore commitment to dispelling needless non-truths against me. My op was innocent, and i won't tolerate unjustified denigration based on false allegations and gross vilification against me without basis.

Coming from the one who thinks he looks so cool wearing his glasses with his long hair, that he wants to post the photo for us to see him in his moniker LOL: here is what melmyers said in his previous post...
 
"(Actually, if he said now that he does own Sonar, I wouldn't believe him.)
 
But then in his next post he goes and asks me if i own Sonar
 
So, melmyer is exhibiting posts with words consisting of self-defeating contradictions, and yet he wants a straight answer from me although he says he wont believe my answer, my God!
 
This is getting laughable! 

Imagine being stuck in an elevator with LA2A.

LA2A
I like the sound of this, and the option of three different emulations, nice! Plus the Tape and EQ and compression emulations, gorgeous!
But i was wondering what other Sonar users think about the pro-channel in regard to its 'sound', not its actual displayed characteristics as achieved by Cakewalk/Gibson, but its 'authenticity', does it achieve accuracy in the emulations of each particular analog desk that it aims to emulate.
I have noticed that Slate-Digital pulled no punches, and the consensus is that Slate-Digital nailed-it, nigh on impossible to tell the difference between their plugins and the real-world counterparts, warts and all; so, i was wondering if i would need to get some of Slate-Digital's plugins or do users here think that the pro-channel has actually achieved absolute authenticity, is it up to Slate-Digital and UAD standards or just merely in the ballpark? 
 
Can anyone point me to any readily available info as to how Cakewalk/Gibson went-about emulating these desks and the extent they went to in order to achieve this?

 
Hi LA2A,
 Welcome to the SONAR forum, its renowned hospitility, and its Ad hominem welcome wagon.
 
  I have asked similar questions in the past and have found it was difficult to learn anything more than you have in this thread.
 
 I don't have an answer for you about how PC2A sounds compared to a real LA2A and I don't think there is much readily available info describing how Cakewalk went about emulating the LA2A, but if you really want to know you may try and contact Robert Currie at http://www.sononics.com. He was the lead engineer on the project back when he worked for Cakewalk.
 
 Good luck.
 
 best regards,
mike
 
 

Nice hot sunny day here in London....

Oh, and LA2A, if you're going to quote me, please don't list me as one of your supporters. I'm saying nothing Craig hasn't said.

Mods, time to put LA2A in the troll bin I think.

Well, running the risk of adding fuel to a fire, I happened to be sitting in front of an SSL this morning and so threw together a quick comparison. For your A/B'ing pleasure:
 
Console comparison (it's about 60 MB)
 
This is three mixdowns of a project I'm working on this morning. One is ITB no console, one is ITB with Cakes console emulator in SSL mode on 16 bus channels, the last is those same 16 busses out through the SSL (signal chain is RME MADI card -> Antelope converter -> SSL -> back to converters to record). My SSL isn't large format, it's just the one in the pic below with the comp and EQ disengaged...the coffee cup is in the pic because it's early and should have no impact on the sound 
 

 
I am mixing through the SSL so that may have some impact. Oh, and I don't have Slate VCC so I can't include that as a comparison point...I would have downloaded a demo but I'm doing actual work this morning and...well...honestly, don't care that much 
 
Dean

Yeah, remember "thomasengineer"? Very similar style.

LA2A
And yet by claiming the statement of Slate Digital "Recreate EVERY subtle nuance" is purely marketing hype or a deliberate exaggeration from his marketing department, is effectively saying Stephen is a liar and trying to deceive us; because you know as well as me that Stephen knows EXACTLY WHAT IS WRITTEN ON HIS OWN WEBSITE! You are essentially calling him a deceptive liar.

 
And this is why you are dishonest.
 
The only comment I made specifically regarding Slate's claims are that they were absolute statements. If that is calling Steven Slate a deceptive liar, you seriously need to take a remedial course on basic language skills.
 
I also gave the opinion that no emulation can ever be 100% accurate because no two analog units are identical. In your twisted world, perhaps you think that I means I am calling Steve Slate a liar. I truly believe Steven Slate himself would not claim anything more than the ability to emulate the individual unit they had for evaluation. 
 
 

But then you have said "And I can tell you right now that VCC does not emulate "every nuance" of the consoles perfectly" Thus 'effectively' calling him a liar; you have indeed made a very negative statement against him and thereby defamed his character.

 
Although you do it poorly, you specialize in the logical fallacy of "special pleading." For example, if I say "This is the best movie ever for putting someone to sleep; it's boring as hell" you would say "Mr Anderton says 'This is the best movie ever'! If you say anything to the contrary, you are lying!"
 
If you're too dense to recognize the respect I have for Steven Slate, which I have stated over and over, then there's nothing more I can say.
 
I gave you two homework assignments. You didn't do the first one, and for the second one, you just made stuff up as I addressed previously. 
 
Tell you what. Email Steven Slate and ask if the VCC emulates the hardware failures in analog consoles. He will say "no, of course not." So then you can go on a tirade about how he's a liar, he contradicts himself, and pursue all the other ad hominem attacks you find such a convenient substitute for honest discourse.
 
You keep making rookie troll mistakes, like using quotes from posts made AFTER your summarizing the community's sentiment to support your contention you summarized the community's sentiment. You're really not a very good troll at all.
 
You didn't do homework assignment #1, and your attempt at #2 was a fail. I could waste more time pointing out the idiocy of your arguments, but it seems that's not necessary as everyone else sees them.
 
The crux of the situation is simple. No two analog devices were the same. Therefore the best anyone can hope for is an accurate emulation of an individual device, and even that is extremely difficult.
 
No one, NO ONE, is arguing that Slate's VCC isn't an excellent and well-engineered plug-in. Read my review.
 
What we argue is that you came in here with an agenda. For whatever reason, you have spent most of your time promoting Slate's products and gotten in snide comments about Cakewalk and Gibson's credibility ("But i must say that Slate Digital had the original hardware in front of them, the 'original' hardware was in their possession, it had to be, in order for them to model it, and extensive A/B comparisons were done to certify the end result as being nigh-on identical to the original hardware - crosstalk, transformers, distortion, harmonics, everything; side by side it is impossible in a blind test to tell them apart, but it appears that this is not the case for the pro-channel, which is a little disappointing, seeing as how Cakewalk/Gibson touts the pro channel as being an emulation of the 'big three' analog classics. What's the point of having an emulation if they don't sound identical to the hardware they seek to emulate? Cakewalk/Gibson should just state that the pro channel merely sets-out to give the 'typical' sound of an expensive analog mixing desk. Has Cakewalk/Gibson ever sought to provide us with info where we might investigate what they did and what extent they went to in order to arrive at their claims of emulating three 'big-name' analog giants of yore?")
 
You give Slate all the benefit of the doubt, despite no hands-on experience with their original models, and you give none to Cakewalk. And your only other post was to point out that in an entirely unscientific survey, "Cubase, Studio One, and Reaper take the Cake."
 
The more you post, the more you underline the fact that you are not sincerely interested in discussing the realities of emulation or the merits of products devoted to console emulation. You have accomplished your agenda of promoting Slate's products, but at the cost of destroying your own credibility.
 
Excuse me, but I need to return to doing my best to answer questions from actual users who want to get the most out of their software, and make the best music possible. As I stated, you are either a troll or a naive purveyor of drama. I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, but after your last post, I'm leaning back more toward the troll explanation. You contribute nothing of merit to this forum.

SvenArne
 
Razorwit> Perhaps you could start a new thread? I don't see this one improving from here, and I don't see the mods disagreeing with me.

Hi Sven
Yeah...you're probably right about this thread being beyond salvage. 
 
Re: a new thread, my earlier A/B stuff was mostly for my own edification, but if anyone is particularly interested and wants me to post that stuff in a new thread for discussion let me know and I'll see if I can get to it a bit later.
 
Dean

Razorwit

SvenArne
 
Razorwit> Perhaps you could start a new thread? I don't see this one improving from here, and I don't see the mods disagreeing with me.

Hi Sven
Yeah...you're probably right about this thread being beyond salvage. 
 
Re: a new thread, my earlier A/B stuff was mostly for my own edification, but if anyone is particularly interested and wants me to post that stuff in a new thread for discussion let me know and I'll see if I can get to it a bit later.
 
Dean

I think it would be great to have an actual discussion about console emulation - best ways to apply it, observations about suitability of the different types for different applications, and so on. If you would post your example as the start of a new thread to kick things off, it would get the attention it deserves instead of being sandwiched in between troll posts and my losing patience with troll posts. 
 
 

Anderton
 
 
I think it would be great to have an actual discussion about console emulation - best ways to apply it, observations about suitability of the different types for different applications, and so on. If you would post your example as the start of a new thread to kick things off, it would get the attention it deserves instead of being sandwiched in between troll posts and my losing patience with troll posts. 
 

 
Hi Craig,
Done, new thread created.
 
Dean