It seems like Slate has finally released the Virtual Mic System, but I'm surprised that the 'net has been so quiet about it.  I expected bombastic statements, both positive and negative, at this point, but there seem to only be two or three reviews online.  Has any one heard it or used it?  What do you think?

Only my opinion, but this just sounds stupid.
 
1. A microphone's audio characteristics are primarily determined by its physical design, diaphragm and discrete electronics. Everything after that is an FX...as is this "system". I don't deny that you can trick the ear very convincingly, but it's still not LIVE; it's just MEMOREX.
 
2. I refuse to use anything that requires a physical dongle, an iLok in this case (PC activation works, but Slate refuse to offer it as an option).
 
3. I would need to have a DAW up and running with their plugin loaded on an audio track to use their "system".
 
4. Finally, if I'm going to spend $999 on a mic, I'm going to buy a $999 mic.
 
Perhaps others feel the same about one or more of this issues.

@themaartian:
Those are all excellent points (especially #1 and #3). I guess what I was wondering was given the passions, both for and against, when VMS was announced, that by now I expected a full conflagration.  Instead there has been only silence.  It just surprised me.
 
thanks for weighing in!

Yeah, they sure had a great marketing launch, right up there with PreSonus!
 
But I think peeps are figuring Steven "Here's Looking At Me" Slate out. I spent a bunch of money on Slate Digital plugins when I was first getting back into music, but struggled getting the stinking iLok to work reliably. They never ONCE responded to any of my attempts to contact them (both support and The Steven (apologies to forum member TheSteven) himself). At this point, all of it has been uninstalled.
 
I'm going to make up numbers here, but the idea is germane:
 
I just don't think most peeps are willing to spend $1K on a $300 mic, a $200 preamp plus some software.
 
I wonder how many units are actually in customers' hands, being used regularly. The silence you find surprising might be a direct reflection of the success (or lack thereof) of VMS.
 
I hope Steven eats a boatload of VMS returns. I can still visualize the Seagate ad showing a garbage barge loaded with IBM PC 10MB hard drives being taken out to sea to be dumped. 

I have to agree. I wouldn't waste my money on Slate, when you can buy the Antares Mic Mod EFX for $99.

What's funny to me is it's supposed to be a 'neutral' mic. What happens to it over time?
 
Maybe I'm wrong , but I'm hard pressed to believe that every mic in the world sounds the same 10, 15 or 20 years later as it did on day one.

Well, it's virtually neutral anyway... 

Many speakers are claimed to have flat frequency response.
None actually do...
 
I agree with TM.
If I'm going to spend $1000+ on a mic, I'm going to get the real thing.
These days, $1k buys a nice mic.

So Slate are saying their (relatively) inexpensive mic has a flat frequency response and a level of detail that matches very expensive mics. Then you impose the plots from the very expensive mics on top of their mic's flat response.

My first thought is why? Is Slate have produced the holy grail of microphones - one with a flat, neutral response - why would I want to superimpose over that the response of an inferior microphone?

High end vintage mics were developed with a view to them making as little difference between the sound they were recording and their output as possible...