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.