Slate Digital Plugins - Are They Overated or Are My Ears Just Not Sharp Enough?

I'd love to get your opinions on this. For context, I think my ears are pretty good at this stage. I know the frequency spectrum quite well and know what each frequency sounds like.

 

 

I definitely hear some great things in some of the Slate Digital plugins (The high end in Revival for example is nice and smooth) but there are often times when I try out a few Slate EQs for example to see which one suits what I’m trying to do best (boosting a particular frequency by 4dB on each EQ) and I honestly hear vitrually no difference or sometimes no difference at all. I’ve heard people talk about the differences between the Slate FG-N, FG-S and FG-A EQs and about how they are each good for different things but when I test this out for myself I just don’t hear it. Apparently the FG-A is good for percussive stuff because as you increase the gain of a bell, the Q gets narrower but I just don’t hear much of a difference when I test it out against the FG-N and FG-S.

 

 

 

So I have two general thoughts on this:

 

 

 

The first is that I feel a little bad about this because I feel that if the slate stuff is that good and really does give me access to digital versions of so many powerful tools then I should be learning to use them properly. With this in mind, I’d like to know if anyone here actually hears significant differences between these EQs and if you think I should continue to try to learn to the differences. O

 

 

The second is that I know my ears work and I know what I’m hearing and even if there are differences between these EQs, to my ears the differences are so small that they are actually negligible so what’s the point? Are we fooling ourselves? Does anyone actually think there’s any justification for having these 3 different EQs?

 

 

Thanks

It's pretty hard to give a general answer here for different reasons.

Hearing and taste are two different subjective topics. So what is valuable in one ear will be negligeable to the other.

Also, to judge the efficiency of a plugin, one has to judge in context. For instance although an EQ setting could sound futile by itself, will become crucial in an entire mix, and then, later down the chain could be more or less noticeable depending of the monitoring environment...

There could also be a myriad of other reasons. But I think you could get a gist of what I meant already...

Have you tried a null test with any of the Slate plugins yet? I only suggest that because I emailed Slate support awhile back regarding their VCC plugin and whether it actually did anything significant or not. They had me do a null test of the plugin...and there it was. Try a null test with each of the EQ's you are questioning would be my suggestion.

It's pretty hard to give a general answer here for different reasons.

Hearing and taste are two different subjective topics. So what is valuable in one ear will be negligeable to the other.

Also, to judge the efficiency of a plugin, one has to judge in context. For instance although an EQ setting could sound futile by itself, will become crucial in an entire mix, and then, later down the chain could be more or less noticeable depending of the monitoring environment...

There could also be a myriad of other reasons. But I think you could get a gist of what I meant already...

 

 

Good response. Thanks.

Have you tried a null test with any of the Slate plugins yet? I only suggest that because I emailed Slate support awhile back regarding their VCC plugin and whether it actually did anything significant or not. They had me do a null test of the plugin...and there it was. Try a null test with each of the EQ's you are questioning would be my suggestion.

 

 

Thanks for that. What exactly is a null test?

Have you tried a null test with any of the Slate plugins yet? I only suggest that because I emailed Slate support awhile back regarding their VCC plugin and whether it actually did anything significant or not. They had me do a null test of the plugin...and there it was. Try a null test with each of the EQ's you are questioning would be my suggestion.

 

 

Thanks for that. What exactly is a null test?

 

Slate has a short video on their support page explaining how to conduct a null test. See link below. Has to do with reversing the phase or something very similar. They use one of their virtual microphones I believe as an example but it should just as easily work for their EQ's as well. I used it for their Virtual Console plugin and the null test worked fine. They use Pro Tools as their DAW but Logic is fine too for conducting the test.

 

https://slatedigital.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/115006786268-How-To-Conduct-A-Null-Test

If you like the tools you have, use them. Don't overthink it.

A lot of the reason for people to choose plugins has to with workflow and inspiration. Even just having a slick gui can inspire use. But in terms of workflow, often these plugins model equipment that was designed to offer very specific broad-stroke movements, with specific curves, around very specific, 'musical' frequencies. As such, very 'musical' results can be achieved a lot quicker.

 

Also, well-modelled plugins should include some of the 'mojo' that can only come from modelling the 'failings' of analogue gear i.e distortion etc. Other companies, such as Brainworx go as far as to model difference in compnent tolerance, so that each instance, just like real hardware, sounds slightly different from the lasr.

 

My workflow is as simple as possible these days. Despite owning some 3rd-party 'mojo', I normally just default to Logic's channel eq and built-on compressor. It's hard to beat that one-click instantiation (Still have my fingers crossed that Apple will save us from plugin menu diving, with a Bitwig-style browser). I also often use Wavearts' Trackplug, as I can pretty much do everything in that (Especially given the Pultec curve it offers).

 

Ultimately, I think that there is wisdom in the idea that 'If you can't hear it, you don't need it'. Not that there isn't an argument for developing the ability to hear these differences. But if, like me, your interest in engineering is a means to an end (rather than the end goal), then I think that all current daw have great quality mixing plugins. Can save a lot of wasted time and money.

Despite owning some 3rd-party 'mojo', I normally just default to Logic's channel eq and built-on compressor. It's hard to beat that one-click instantiation

 

Ain't that the truth.

What happened to the OP?

Finally some sense.

I think slate is grossly over-rated, mostly snake oil, and out of all areas of development Slate is the strongest on marketing.

 

there, i said it, fite me.

 

I just bought a shitload of plugs over black friday.

Slate, Waves and Acoustica will never make it on my list, if they do i'll eat a f$@%ing brick

Thanks for all the replies everyone.

Finally some sense.

I think slate is grossly over-rated, mostly snake oil, and out of all areas of development Slate is the strongest on marketing.

 

there, i said it, fite me.

 

I just bought a shitload of plugs over black friday.

Slate, Waves and Acoustica will never make it on my list, if they do i'll eat a f$@%ing brick

 

Do you have this opinion about the concept of analog emulation in general or just about certain companies that are doing it? For example, how do you rate UAD, a company which does the same kind of thing?

Finally some sense.

I think slate is grossly over-rated, mostly snake oil, and out of all areas of development Slate is the strongest on marketing.

 

there, i said it, fite me.

 

I just bought a shitload of plugs over black friday.

Slate, Waves and Acoustica will never make it on my list, if they do i'll eat a f$@%ing brick

 

Do you have this opinion about the concept of analog emulation in general or just about certain companies that are doing it? For example, how do you rate UAD, a company which does the same kind of thing?

I like UAD but i don't want to invest into their ecosystem - they have things on the expensive side.

I'm not against analog emulation by default, and i like it when done right. for example, Softube, UAD, U-he (synths)

Finally some sense.

I think slate is grossly over-rated, mostly snake oil, and out of all areas of development Slate is the strongest on marketing.

 

there, i said it, fite me.

 

+1. I never bought into the Slate stuff either.

Finally some sense.

I think slate is grossly over-rated, mostly snake oil, and out of all areas of development Slate is the strongest on marketing.

 

there, i said it, fite me.

 

+1. I never bought into the Slate stuff either.

 

I actually think some of the Slate does stuff does sound good. I think the virtual channel and virtual mixbus plugins do something audiblly good to a mix (althought I have virtually no experience mixing with actual real analog hardware). Have you used those 2 plugins?

 

But when he talks about the differences between the FG-N, FG-A and FG-S EQs I don't really buy it.

I haven't, but I don't feel anything is missing from what I currently use.

I haven't, but I don't feel anything is missing from what I currently use.

 

Interesting. So to add "warmth, depth and vibe to your mixes" as Steven Slate puts it , what do you currently use? Is it all hardware or are there are a select few plugins that do this for you?

I haven't, but I don't feel anything is missing from what I currently use.

 

Interesting. So to add "warmth, depth and vibe to your mixes" as Steven Slate puts it , what do you currently use? Is it all hardware or are there are a select few plugins that do this for you?

Oh no, i do everything ITB. If it's good enough for Serban Ghenea it should be enough for me.

 

My favourite flavour adding plugins in no particular order:

- Wavesfactory Spectre (for band-limited saturation)

- FabFilter Saturn (for more obvious saturation)

- Voxengo Warmifier (it's really subtle and great for spicing stuff up)

- u-he Presswerk saturation model (when i compress)

- u-he Satin tape sim (for warming and "vibing" s#!+ up)

- iZotope Nectar exciter module (for vocals to add some sparkle)

- Wavesfactory Cassette (for really dirty s#!+. It behave so much as my actual cassette deck it's just not worth dealing with hardware at this point)

 

Interesting. So to add "warmth, depth and vibe to your mixes" as Steven Slate puts it , what do you currently use? Is it all hardware or are there are a select few plugins that do this for you?

Oh no, i do everything ITB. If it's good enough for Serban Ghenea it should be enough for me.

 

My favourite flavour adding plugins in no particular order:

- Wavesfactory Spectre (for band-limited saturation)

- FabFilter Saturn (for more obvious saturation)

- Voxengo Warmifier (it's really subtle and great for spicing stuff up)

- u-he Presswerk saturation model (when i compress)

- u-he Satin tape sim (for warming and "vibing" s#!+ up)

- iZotope Nectar exciter module (for vocals to add some sparkle)

- Wavesfactory Cassette (for really dirty s#!+. It behave so much as my actual cassette deck it's just not worth dealing with hardware at this point)

 

Thanks. I use the Kush Omega 458A and Fielding Reviver.

I wanted to buy Reviver at some point, but i got so close with iZotope Neutron's exciter I didn't bother - its good tho.

heard awesome s#!+ about kush and some people i know and respect used it, but haven't yet dived into them. Have to handle what i have first

I actually think some of the Slate does stuff does sound good. I think the virtual channel and virtual mixbus plugins do something audiblly good to a mix (althought I have virtually no experience mixing with actual real analog hardware). Have you used those 2 plugins?

I demoed them.

 

Interesting. So to add "warmth, depth and vibe to your mixes" as Steven Slate puts it , what do you currently use?

I have a few UAD plugins that I reach for for this purpose.