I tend to use my ears to decide, rather than listen to marketing hype.
 
I would ask the OP (la2a) to do the same, but since he can't hear the difference between saturation on low frequencies and high frequencies, there is not much point.  Cloth-ears.
 
I guess he is pretty naïve, or a troll.
 
Judging from his other threads, perhaps a naïve troll..

Has anyone worked out what LA2A's actual point is?

John T
Has anyone worked out what LA2A's actual point is?

I thought i had already made my point abundantly clear!
 

carl
It's called stirring the pot.

 
Well not really, i would be just as happy to have a conversation/debate about the authenticity or quality of different Reverb plugins or EQ plugins or the transparency of different brands of bus Limiters. Nothing wrong with that, discussing the ins&outs of different plugins, wants wrong with that? If you have an opinion i'm happy to hear it, whether you agree or disagree with me, no need to take a cynical view on the matter, i'm happy to hear anyone's thoughts about different plugins and what they think of their performance.
 

Sanderxpander
Comparing the Slate and Waves pages leads to very similar talk. Slate say "every nuance" is modeled. Waves say for instance they have "captured every distinctive nuance". Both of them admit adding sound-altering features. Both of them have big names behind them for endorsement. If you're impressed by Rupert Neve, Waves actually got a license from SSL to use their brand name. I'm not saying this to promote Waves, I'm merely showing that both companies will go to some length to convince you that their product is the real deal. It has little effect on reality, and you really, really shouldn't use their marketing blurbs to back up your opinion. You've seen what it has gained you on this forum.

Good luck using whatever plugs you want to.

Big names don't endorse something unless it's the 'real deal', SSL 'don't endorse' Waves, they simply sold them the license to use the SSL name on the Waves plugin, but SSL or any big name producer has nothing to gain and everything to lose if they fallaciously endorse something; endorsing Slate Digitals's plugins as perfect cannot be proven wrong, they can back-up their claims, no other company can prove their claims because Slate Digital can show you the evidence that such claims are false.
Go in and have a look at the studio of Jay Baumgardner (platinum selling producer who will only use analog hardware), and yet he is now using Slate Digital's VTM Tape Machine plugin for all his work, he doesn't use his hardware Tape Machine anymore, simply because the Slate Digital VTM is 100% authentic, identical to high-end analog Tape machines.
What about the mastering studio of acclaimed Mastering Engineer Howie Weinberg (considered to be one of the top 5 mastering engineers in the world alongside Alan Silverman), these guys don't play games with their audio, and they don't make false claims, yet now he is using Slate Digital's VTM Tape machine emulation because it is identical to his $10,000 hardware Struder Tape machine, that's an irreproachable endorsement in reality, not merely marketing blurb. 
 
However, have you ever heard SSL claim the Waves plugin is identical to their own hardware, the simple answer is NO! They haven't, that's because it isn't. And why do you think Waves keep having special sales for their plugins, 70% off, 80% off? They have been doing this for quite a while, and that's because they know their plugins are way overpriced and because Slate Digital has taken a large share of their customers. I can tell you that Waves is indeed way overhyped, i would go so far as to say that Waves plugins are bordering on garbage! I have a free Bus Limiter that outperforms their L2 and L3, do you believe me? The tests have been done, and many other cheap plugins can be shown to outperform the Waves equivalent. The marketing hype for Waves made them a lot of money over the years, way to much money, but when the real deal comes along the truth becomes much more apparent!
Slate Digital can show you on a computer screen all the most lauded plugins and play you the sine wave and square wave and triangle waves and other sonic signatures of these plugins and prove to you how they are way of the mark and equate to basically a mere approximation, including the Waves plugins, but Slate Digital's plugins are identical in every sonic signature to the analog performance, and yet look at the price of Slate Digitals' plugins compared to say Sonnox Oxford or Waves, don't you know a good thing when you see it, or should that be 'hear it' LOL. With Slate Digital you not only get no compromise perfect real world performance for your audio, but you also get it cheap compared to these other overpriced products which do not successfully emulate the real hardware to the same degree as Slate Digital.
 
 
 

mettelus
I don't own any Slate plugins, and based on posts like this, I would never buy one, even if they were a great deal. LA2A has turned me against Slate forever. Your comments make me (personally) not want to ever give Slate a chance.

+1

If you are not on Slates payroll, you should be. All of your threads seem to follow the exact same pattern of ask a question..wait for a few supplies and then go on about how Slate is superior.

Is it me, or does he sound like "Godparticle"?

jb101
Is it me, or does he sound like "Godparticle"?

To be fair though after his first thread I just tuned him out. Don't care who is, don't have the time to care.
 
Regards,

Whoever it is, they've got far too much time on their hands.

You absolutely have a right to an opinion. It's quite clearly not a very informed one, but hey.

Hopefully nobody thinks I'm a troll for actually wanting to get back on topic but here goes. 
 
I use the plug-in a lot, and have used it with great results on buses, especially the drum bus. It is a "salt to taste" effect for sure, but some of the groups I've recorded call it "the magic button". If used wisely, it does add a nice character and depth to some things. I rarely have the knob past 9 o'clock a lot.
 
 
 

To me, tube saturation plug-ins are tough to quantify and I'm sure anyone here who has used real tubes will agree that each tube has it's own character and sound. If you compared two 12ax7s one made today by Tung Sol to say an NOS Telefunken, you would hear a difference without being a hard-core audiophile. I guess it comes down to what you expect out of tube, and how closely the plug-in mimics that.
 

And, LA2A, you simply cannot state that this or that plugin recreates a model of vintage hardware down to "every nuance". They're all different, sometimes dramatically so. Vintage consoles or rack gear have all been refurbished and recapped in different ways in order to keep working, so you'd need to test it agains the very piece that they used for modelling! 
 
Personally I've stopped caring about plugin authenticity. So long as they do something I like, then great. The Cakewalk CA-2A is one example. It does not model the non-linearity (in terms of distortion characteristics, not compression curve) of the hardware, but it just works! That's why it's sitting on every vocal track of mine in place of the new(ish) UAD-2 LA2A trio. 

You're just saying that because you've only got plastic spoons and you're jealous.

Anderton
[...] a Synclavier[...]

I thought this was funny! What would be the Synclavier of 2014? Like the ultimate mythical piece of gear? 

Anderton

SvenArne
Yup, I use it on every bass track with the switch set to "keep low". It may sound excessively gritty and growly solo'd, but it really enhances the audibility and "upfrontness" in the mix without it becoming overpoweringly loud.

+1. I saved a remix once with distortion on the bass. 

 The QuadraFuzz?

You need to throw that stuff away and invest in some Steven Spoon spoons.