#Universal audio plugins vs slate Pc#
My iLok and eLicenser are on an internal header locked inside the PC case.so, it's not really mobile, but they're safe and completely out of mind. I vastly prefer desktops to laptops, and now I've got USB ports to spare with zero hubs plugged into my computer. I should also say that my opinion is also largely based on switching first to hackintoshes and then PC/Windows several years ago after seeing the direction Apple was headed with their hardware. It's absolutely a bargain at that price! Just a touch more than a 57 for way more. rantĪs for the price of the mic I have no clue how they do it, it's genuinely a well-built mic with a good base sound, and the emulations take it to the next level. Obviously people that pirate just because they don't want to pay will always exist, and those people are awful.
Now, there's a dozen different services, and piracy is making a comeback. When streaming came out with Netflix, piracy for shows and movies took a steep nosedive, because it was cheap and convenient to get all the shows needed. That's seen throughout the internet history, especially with streaming/cable. Make it inconvenient or excessively expensive, people will pirate it. I think that's the best way to do it: make a good product, price it fairly, people will buy it. I love the way Cockos made Reaper's policy, I initially started with Reaper because it was "free," but of course payed for it as soon as I could.
#Universal audio plugins vs slate software#
I guess it just confuses me why this particular aspect of modeling is so popular.Ĭlick to expand.I can see the appeal when you have one and it just works, but I just don't want to spend extra money, use an extra USB port, just to use software I already own to be able to use the hardware I already own.
And while they are less expensive than U87s or a lot of tube mics, they're much more expensive than a lot of the staples (414s, 57s, 7Bs, etc.). And if you're trying to record a whole band at once-for example-you still need a lot of them. But, there's a part of me that honestly wonders if they're not popular just because the mics happen to just be really good. And, if you actually can get what you need for a bunch of situations out of a couple mics, that's really cool. I'm pretty sure the pattern switch was a lot of the reason they owned so many matched pairs of 414s. But, that was still choosing a general shape that worked better on the day, not-AFAIK-something to do with the exact pattern of one mic over another. There definitely were times when we would swap between cardioid or hypercardioid (for example) due to rejection, and we often auditioned figure-8 vs. As far as it was explained to me, they were modifying that placement mostly to reject other sounds and to act as an EQ (so they'd have to use less actual EQ) rather than taking advantage of some aspect of the exact shape.
I was always more interested in mixing and mastering than tracking, so.all I ever did was set up what the lead engineer asked for and then tweak their placements with guidance. Maybe that's just not something I really investigated.I've worked with some very high-end mics, but.it was as an intern. (I obviously get why you would choose one shape over another in different situations.) But.I'm also really curious why the exact polar pattern of a particular mic is a big deal. I guess if they're stereo mics, there are a some math-y eq/phase/cancellation tricks they can do.