Mirco, any chance that you may be releasing this one for "regular" Nebula as well some day? Or do you want to stick to the ACQUA engine?

Hi compyfox,

we will consider to release it as a regular program some day, for
now we are sticked to it as a plug-in, to those who are interested
in it and do not own nebula.

____________________________________________________________ _______

Some important informations!

To all users of the W735EQ Plug-In, please download the newest installer (W735EQ V1.3.)and re-authorize the new version!

the old authorizations will not work with the new version. so please upload the new W735EQ.ser file to our server and generate a new working W735EQ.aut file!

thanks for your attention!

ciao
mirco //analoginthebox.com

"...we all know Nebula technology is limited to one band at a time..."

With all the other limitations that Nebula has, being able to use only one band is so extremely limiting when other plugins are available (Waves, UAD, TC, PSP, IK, ECT) that sound BETTER and allow the work-flow to remain intuitive.

I own the full version of Nebula and some of the extra (paid) add-ons but simply don't use them any more.

To my ears they simply don't stand up sonically, ergonomically, or efficiently.

I'm still looking for a good equalizer to replace Nebula/Acqua in those quick mixes in a budget. I haven't given a listen to Waves H-EQ yet but the most decent thing I heard years ago was Redline Equalizer, in my opinion. Still looking for something like Nebula's W295B, PoolTeQ, CLeQ, VBeQ, Doc Fear and Focal Point 115HD, so please, if you own any of these libraries and know plug-ins that could replace them and really stand out, give me a hint

Ergonomically and efficiently yes. Sonically no.

Of course sonically is ALWAYS a matter of taste so that remains relative.
But, when you have to chain several copies of Nebula back to back in order to get 3 or 4 bands of EQ you are going to degrade the audio quality.
Nebula will be adding additional noise and phase per copy so mutable copies being used to achieve multiple bands is inherently self defeating.

Companies like Waves, UAD, Softube, IKMultimedia who offer plugins that model multiple aspects of the hardware they are emulating (ie: transformers, tubes, switches, etc.),
are able to reproduce much more accurate reproductions of the original hardware without the additional noise and phase NOT inherent in the original device.

Many people have never used hardware vintage equipment like Pultecs, Fairchilds, SSL, Studer, etc so they will never really know the difference.
Having worked with these tools, my ears tell me that the Waves, UAD, Softube, IKMultimedia versions are MUCH closer to the originals without the added inaccuracies inherent in the Nebula process.


Simply the way Nebula deals with audio suffers from some problems.
UAD for example have been in business since the 1940's engineering some of the finest hardware tools ever made.
Their emulations of hardware they originally designed is much closer then many of the other emulations available.
Waves are also extraordinarily good.

They are also using a completely tried and tested technology that does not inherently suffer from the same problems that Nebula does.
Really it comes down to the end result and how the final mix reproduces on multiple systems.

It would be interesting to know how many major producers prefer Nebula over Waves, UAD, Softube, somehow I don't think you will find that many.

Having said that, Nebula is capable of some interesting results when used sparingly.
In terms of dealing with dynamics, it can never really compare to top notch VST plugins, the technology is currently limited in this way.

Fortunately they offer a free version, do you can do your own tests.....

I tried the most plugs, I prefer Nebula.

I can answer here, it's a specific question: time ago a teacher of a school (music school) told me they (many students and other engineers) performed a lot of blind test about nebula, real hardware and other plugs (let's say "many"). Results were very good. If you (or other people) need more details drop to me an email or a pm, I'll put in touch with him easily (it's an active member on gearslutz). I can't tell the name in open forums cause details he will explain to you (an other plugin developer is involved).

Since our product is very cheap, I can tell you many pros are using it, but they don't want it to be said on public forums (they say they are using hardware, but they use nebula as replacement of hardware because it's faster). It was explained many times also in public forums by many users (I remember an user from turkey who said many pros are using nebula in turkey). We receive many feedbacks about that. Just give a glance to our forum, I could say our userbase is pretty big now, so there are many "ears" there, and you can search details easily.

btw, nebula doesn't introduce phase issues or noise. There are combo programs for this exact purpose. VST analyzer is your friend. You'll discover many hardware-modeled plugins have standard curves, fake harmonic distortion and so on, no correct dynamic replica and so on. Imho they are all good products, nebula has pros and cons.

cons: bad interface and workflow
pro: MANY colors, cheap prices, good quality. You can collect easily the equivalent of many plugins with a little moneny, and often nebula is even better

pardon me? you are actually saying that your product has a bad interface and workflow? it's very refreshing to hear such honesty!

yes...
I don't think we have the best workflow around, I'm honest, sometimes it's caused by the higher cpu load, so you are forced to render. This is not a secret.
At the same time I think nebula is sometimes more straightforward than other ones. We have presets, you load them and you have just 8 controls. A lot of plugins have dozens of knobs, sliders, distracting and strange graphs...
Our product is more "apple" from this point of view. More constraints, but ready for the job. Sometimes a magic black-box.

so about workflow

cons: cpu load, especially if you use old computers (if you use a fast cpu your experience will be a lot better, though); cryptic controls in nebula display interface (we'll remove that display, standalone plugins are a lot better), loading time, eq limited to few bands, troubles sometimes with compressors

pros: simple controls for most of presets, new concept of vst effect based on ready-to-go presets, tons of simple presets which need a little tweaking or no tweaking at all. You plug and it works, instantly. Change the preset till you find what you are looking for.

if you see the list, there are a lot of cons, we are not blind. At the same time I think our product is worthing, and it's one of the best in the market, because pros are balanced with cons (especially soundwise).

I find it quite funny that Waves SSL analog button adds low level noise. Probably not doing anything else. Charles Dye commented on a forum that the button adds 'punch'.. haha

RedLine's old EQ sure was something special with the different modes per each band. Pity that it turned really quiet around them since the main developer left us.

Soundwise and in terms of usability I still say that BootEQmkII and ALL-TECH (Nomad Factory) are still my favourites. The only issues I have are that BootEQ is still locked to the SM Shell, and that the ALL-TECH only offers that less frequency bands (maybe an "extended" version would be nice).


There are tons of possibilities, and we know most of them already. But I think in the end it's unfortunately really down to "it's all digital" yet again.

this piqued my interest recently - http://weldroid.net/track/synesthesia-vst.

hi folks!

we have a working - but limited - demo now!!!

so you can test it for yourself and
can hear how it works on your music.

you can download it here:

PLEASE READ THE READ_ME inside!

http://www.analoginthebox.com/demos/w735eq_v1.3_x86_demo.zip

for more informations, please read the manual:

http://www.analoginthebox.com/documents/manuals/w735eq_manua l.pdf


thanks for listening & have fun with it!

ciao
mirco//analoginthebox.com

I like it.
I was able to put some shine on a track even with just the -+2db and -+9db DEMO limitation.
Tried on another track but it did'nt work so well (not enought -+db's).
Pity it uses a LOT of CPU and doesn't report it to host.