Nomad Factory Blue Tubes Bundle ,,,anyone using this?

[hifiboom]

FWIW the Duende is significantly more powerful than Powercore and UAD-1. It has 4 x 333MHz SHARC processors running at 40-bit floating point. Powercore Firewire had 4 x 150 MHz Motorola 56k DSPs.

jeah and MHz =/= Power
you can't compare a Motorola chip with an Analog Devices DSP chip...
And much more important is how the algos are programmed...

And to the other statement:
The sound is what counts, not the DSP power nor the Mhz.

[Jason Brian Merrill]

I dont give a crap about a graph.

Ridiculous....

show me two audio files, i ask again. It seems you are generalizing all "other" audio processors besides AirEq... have you personally looked into the code of Blue tubes? Have you actually done a comparison? If so, you should have sound files somewhere showing the difference..

otherwise,

PIX = STFU

(all in good fun)

[Arksun]

you are the dumb ones for not listening and trying to understand what i wrote.

@arksun: that's why there are this discussions all around the web about summing engines and 'this daw sound better than that' when they in reality don't. the ear is easy to fool(loudness, nice guis, price).
if something is the emulation of something, and even doesn't give you the same curve(one important thing for an eq), it won't sound the same. this should be very easy to understand. the customers get fooled.

it's all math. and simple algos won't give you a good emulation.

@capncockhead: you're confusing some things big time. i didn't say analog is better than digital. there will be emulations that will get as close that the human hear won't hear a difference(when everything is matched the same way). but blue tubes isn't of this kind LOL.

if you don't want to learn i don't care, stay dumb

You really don't get it do you.

Music is ART!, its an entirely subjective form, thus the ultimate deciding factor to whether something sounds 'good' in music.. is the very same thing we use to enjoy it, the ears.

Perhaps we should ban all distorting plugs, cause they must be really badly designed, kinda.. well. distorting the sound, and no-one ever ever wants any kind of distortion in music, in say rock music for example?.

I'm not denying you need maths and algo's and understanding to make them in the first place of course you do!, but to generalise by saying that specs rule all, no need to even listen is the ultimate in dumb right there!. lol.

I can see what you were trying to say with your post defjamm, but believe me the way it came across was totally wrong!

[hifiboom]

@defjamm: I m not sure, but I think its not only the curve that gives the EQ its soundqulity, but also the algo how it detects the different frequencies etc. and how it handles the audio....

At least the curve is just something technical, that doesn't make the sound better or worse, its just a different type....

Analog sounds mostly better because all the internal circuits react different and have some overdrive and other sideffects... which colours the sound.

The problem is that most VSTfx and synths sound static and flat because there is no dynamic in it and no colouring ....

We have thousands of clean EQs and clean and flat sounding synths, they never distorts, the filter is ultra clean. In some way it is perfection, but to my ears and some other its exactly the opposite of it...

Search a VST compressor that has a rough sound, an colouring EQ, or a synth with nice analog warmth filters. You hardly find one in VST world. Somebody should start to model exactly the components of analog gear. Not just the curve on an EQ, or the treshold range at an compressor.

(The same would be if someone comes up and says a PC game looks like the real world just because consisting all the objects of real world... But in fact to make it look real you have to model every side effect, like the light, shades, ....)



Of course that neads much money and some equipment ... Nothing for a solo programmer project.

But the result will be worth it.

Thats why all the DSP solutions sound in many segments better, because they did some real modelling and analysiing of the hardware tools.

[hibidy]

isn't it amazing how the original poster is long gone.....wonder why?

Anyhow, I have never tried the bluetube bundle, but I've been playing around with the analog factory and bluetube verb.


I'm pretty impressed with the verb, aamof, I think I'm sold on it. I have several, and of course the cool ones that come with logicpro, and this one seems to have some very nice properties. Not to mention it's really easy on the cpu.

I've decided against the analog bundle since the limiter and the eq are kinda "eh". Oh, they aren't bad.......but I'd rather pay way more (or less????) for something else. Besides, wavearts trackplug does both MUCH better.....and I have that.

However, I am going to get the studio channel 226. In particular, for GAP where it come "after"...............it provides wonderful thick tone after gap, line 6, Im sure amplitube/guitar rig..........what ever. It uses no cpu and just makes me want to play without the need for constant tweeking for HOURS!

If anyone does want to get nomadfactory stuff ( and some others), make sure you go to http://www.dontcrack.com/....the prices are better.

[CapnLockheed]

you are the dumb ones for not listening and trying to understand what i wrote.

@arksun: that's why there are this discussions all around the web about summing engines and 'this daw sound better than that' when they in reality don't. the ear is easy to fool(loudness, nice guis, price).
if something is the emulation of something, and even doesn't give you the same curve(one important thing for an eq), it won't sound the same. this should be very easy to understand. the customers get fooled.

it's all math. and simple algos won't give you a good emulation.

@capncockhead: you're confusing some things big time. i didn't say analog is better than digital. there will be emulations that will get as close that the human hear won't hear a difference(when everything is matched the same way). but blue tubes isn't of this kind LOL.

if you don't want to learn i don't care, stay dumb

I fully understand your ridiculously oversimplified statement.
Don't put words in my mouth. Nowhere,(except maybe in my sig he..he.. ), did I say a damn thing about analog vs digital.
My point was'nt even about tubes vs transistors,(which BTW
isn't a comparison of analog vs. digital..don't know
much about electronics do you?). My point was that you made
your argument with pictures,(i.e. graphic representations).
This is EXACTLY the same type of "science" the engineers have
always used to sell the next "better" thing. Whether it be
transistors or microchips or modeling algrithms is irrelevant.
The crux of the biscuit,(i.e. "point"), is how does it sound?

I could give a rat's ass about your "science". Perhaps your
ear is easily fooled.....mine is not. I'm not defending any
particular means to achieve the ultimate end..."good" sound,
(which BTW is highly subjective in and of itself).

If that makes me dumb, I thank god I'm not as enlightened as
you.

Cheers.....CL

[defjamm]

I dont give a crap about a graph.

Ridiculous....

show me two audio files, i ask again. It seems you are generalizing all "other" audio processors besides AirEq...

what could be the reason einstein? because it does different things and doesn't use the same standard digital implementation for filters like the others. there are fixes, but they a)are still unsymmetric or b)need more cpu because of the oversampling.

have you personally looked into the code of Blue tubes? Have you actually done a comparison? If so, you should have sound files somewhere showing the difference

yes i have checked them, that's why i wrote they have asymmetrical filters in the high mids/highs at 44k, because they use standard algos.

WHAT IS SO f**king HARD TO UNDERSTAND, that the filter shape results in sound/audio. and if the shape isn't near the analog one(what it should be as an emulation of an analog eq) then there is no need to even listen, it won't sound like what it is supposed to emulate. and if you want to listen it will sound different compared to an analog one, because they do different things. and if the analog eq is your reference than the digital eq with its standard filters sounds worse.

@hifiboom: nowhere did i say that the shape is everything for the sound of the eq BUT it IS ONE important thing. and if just one thing(like the shape) is different to the original, how much worth is the emulation, especially when you claim 'analog warmth' with your plug-ins? it's bullshit marketing.

you are wrong btw if you believe the curve hasn't nothing to do with sound and is just 'something technical'. it IS ONE of the important things in an eq. i agree with the rest of your posting, that's why i said, blue tubes gives you something but it hasn't much to do with analog equipment, and i showed just one thing to prove it -> filter shape.

[/url]

[Jason Brian Merrill]

BS alert.

[defjamm]

you are the dumb ones for not listening and trying to understand what i wrote.

@arksun: that's why there are this discussions all around the web about summing engines and 'this daw sound better than that' when they in reality don't. the ear is easy to fool(loudness, nice guis, price).
if something is the emulation of something, and even doesn't give you the same curve(one important thing for an eq), it won't sound the same. this should be very easy to understand. the customers get fooled.

it's all math. and simple algos won't give you a good emulation.

@capncockhead: you're confusing some things big time. i didn't say analog is better than digital. there will be emulations that will get as close that the human hear won't hear a difference(when everything is matched the same way). but blue tubes isn't of this kind LOL.

if you don't want to learn i don't care, stay dumb

You really don't get it do you.

Music is ART!, its an entirely subjective form, thus the ultimate deciding factor to whether something sounds 'good' in music.. is the very same thing we use to enjoy it, the ears.

Perhaps we should ban all distorting plugs, cause they must be really badly designed, kinda.. well. distorting the sound, and no-one ever ever wants any kind of distortion in music, in say rock music for example?.

I'm not denying you need maths and algo's and understanding to make them in the first place of course you do!, but to generalise by saying that specs rule all, no need to even listen is the ultimate in dumb right there!. lol.

I can see what you were trying to say with your post defjamm, but believe me the way it came across was totally wrong!

hell lol...where did i say that music is not art? this has nothing to do with the things i talk about -> claiming 'analog warmth' in a plug-in and in reality(and underneath the nice guis) they just use simple algos, which don't give even the same curve.

i also can't remember writing that distortion is bad. but distortion is once again a great example for emulations of analog hardware. there are plug-ins claiming to give you 'analog warmth' with a tube slapped on the gui that alias as hell. i don't know that they emulate, but it's not tube hardware. and so on.

@capncockhead: you're talking about non relevant things. nowhere did i write there is something like the ultimate good sound. this is from my first posting in this thread:

'now as with all tools, you can use them and make something out of it(something brutal/ugly sounding could be the ticket in certain musical genres). some people like aliasing, others like assymetrical filters. it's just that they don't give you what they claim and there are better plug-ins, that are closer to this certain claim than blue tubes.'

check the first sentence. you basically repeated what i wrote in my first posting in this thread.

but what i talk about is something completely different:
there is a claim -> i can scientifically(better than all wannabe ears and the people with the good ears will come to the same conclusion as me with my test) prove that it's bullshit what they claim

what is so hard in understanding that? you don't even need to use your f**king ears in this case because one basic important thing for the sound in a eq is different to the original.

[defjamm]

btw nowhere did i say something about air eq. i provided the link to help you understand the topic(but seems to be a waste of time). but somebody mentioned air eq. they claim a curve that is close to the analog one. this claim is TRUE. now if that eq sounds bad or not, decide for yourself, BUT THEIR CLAIM IS TRUE.

[Alan]

I havent heard any audio comparisons to tell me that blue tubes suck...

They have a demo so I heard for myself.

[stuharris1969]

I've used the Blue Tubes Bundle. I don't claim to be an audio expert but I have pretty good ears. Definitely did give warmth to my mix and am seriously considering purchasing it. I'll have a look at the other suggestion here too but it definitely sounded good to me. I like the Liquid bundle too.

[CapnLockheed]

Capncockhead??

Ok, Blinddeafanddumbjam you can take
your "scientific proof" and shove it up
your narrow wigger ass.

I make my living with these "wannabe" ears and I'm willing to bet I've been doing so longer than you've been alive little boy. How 'bout you? What do YOU do for a living?? Besides polishing knobs that is??

Cheers....CapnCockhead

[defjamm]

while i'm providing facts, all you can do is writing crap which is non relative to the topic. it doesn't surprise me that you're an old man. old men are often the most ignorant ones. they think they know everything. that you make a living with your ears doesn't prove shit...you could have 10 grammys, it still doesn't tell anything about your knowledge of DIGITAL SIGNAL PROCESSING. i could be selling drugs, it wouldn't tell shit about my dsp-knowledge.
a drummer does also a living (when he is lucky) with music. does this mean he knows how an eqs works internally? does he know something about dsp automatically? what about a piano player. old girl, your example sucks.

must the programmer of cubase have good ears? no you idiot, he must have good programming skills.

i KNOW i'm right and your just an old geezer looking for attention.

[KleVeR]

I'm here with Defjamm..
Y'all don't get his points. And IMO it's true what he says.

I'm sure he wouldn't do a mix or master based on looking at meters without using his ears.. that's not his point. What he tries to say is: if only the curves are not right and it's scientifically prooveable, than the whole thing can't be good (what btw can also be prooven by ear).

You have to see it like this: a mechanic could tell you that your car won't drive that good (or fast) on those elliptical tires by only looking at them. He can tell that because the tires are simply not perfectly round.

Get it?