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.