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

[HalloweenJack]

i think the original question has gotten lost here. I own the Nomad Factory Analog Signature series and 2 UAD-1 boards. I dont own the Blue Tubes pack. I love both the Nomad and UAD-1 plugs, but they are really different. I use them, as Dylan says, to put "Sound all over" my tracks. When I decided to buy the Nomad plugs, I worked with the demos of both the AS and BT plug-ins, and found that the Blue Tube plugs were just not all that good, that they altered the sound in unpleasant ways and seemed to be ineffective overall, whereas the Analog Signature series are miles above their stablemates. They possess one of the most realistic "tube sound" emulation algos out there. They're easy on the eyes and the cpu...
Y'know, the PSP Analog Warmer is an odd phenomenom. Its one of the most beloved plug-ins out there, period. I dont think I've ever read a bad review on it. But in all honesty, the Voxengo AeonFlux, er, um, Analog Flux suite is just flat out better. Greater flexibility, better tape emulation and "analog sound".

Its all about how the stuff bends your tracks in the ways you find most attractive. Arguments about math and curves and digital v. Analog are pointless. Its the sound that counts, and how you can get it all over things to the degree you intended.

[hifiboom]

By the way, I always like Torbens stuff ...

[defjamm]

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?

thank you, at least there are people who understand it and agree. you have put it down in a nicer way than me.

[defjamm]

you are wrong btw if you believe the curve hasn't nothing to do with sound and is just 'something technical'.

I don't believe this! Its just that I do not claim that curve A sounds better than curve B.
Its the same with different Q settings, large Q sounds totally different than small Q values. But you cannot say Q=0.5 is better than Q=1.2.
Thats the nature of things!

But for emulation true hardware: the curve would be a good starting point. And if the curve is not same as the analog hardware it should not have a stamp to be an emulation.

you first say 'i don't believe it' and then write what i wrote lol. i don't say one curve is better than the other...i say: when you emulate device A that has a specific curve(ONE important thing), this curve is your REFERENCE. it's what you call GOOD, because you want this sound. but if you don't get the same curve in your emulation, then it's BAD, because you didn't come close to the REFERENCE. i'm using really simple language, it's really shocking that people don't understand what i write

basically we agree.

edit: and what i talk about has NOTHING to do with different Q values. due to problems in the implementation you can't match the curve, understand that. once again i'm talking about 44k.

[Arksun]

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?

thank you, at least there are people who understand it and agree. you have put it down in a nicer way than me.

We ALL understood your point, its just that most of us totally disagreed in your wording of it, because you did make it sound like people dont even need to listen to something to tell if its good or not!

Maths and Science are key to creating a good sounding plug. But the ears will ALWAYS be the de-facto standard deciding factor as to whether a plug is actually any good sounding or not.

Failure to acknowledge this most basic and fundamental of truths defies all logic and common sense in what is, engineering for an art form, that art form being... music

[defjamm]

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?

thank you, at least there are people who understand it and agree. you have put it down in a nicer way than me.

We ALL understood your point, its just that most of us totally disagreed in your wording of it, because you did make it sound like people dont even need to listen to something to tell if its good or not!

'i don't say one curve is better than the other...i say: when you emulate device A that has a specific curve(ONE important thing), this curve is your REFERENCE. it's what you call GOOD, because you want this sound. but if you don't get the same curve in your emulation, then it's BAD, because you didn't come close to the REFERENCE.'

i'm talking about the quality of the emulation. and if an emulation fails to deliver one important thing of the original, it's BAD.

edit: to be fair, not only blue tubes has this problem but a lot of digital eqs claiming to be analog modelled(at 44k and mostly in the high-mids, highs).

[Arksun]

FINALLY! lol. Now thats how it should have been written

[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.

You're quite correct I am older than you. Your level of immaturity makes that plainly obvious. I'm not just a
musician little boy. I have a degree in EE and I was
looking at the curves of real analog circuits on real
oscilloscopes when you were just a twinkle in your
father's pants.

first talking about level of immaturiy and then lol, what a clownish old girl. look i don't care what you have been measuring and how old you are, it's not topic relevant. all your postings towards me were off-topic.

You think because you've read a few
tutorials online you're now an audio engineer and DSP
programmer? You never did answer my question: What do
you do for a living? Don't give up flipping those
burgers just yet!!

once again only accusations, no prove, you just talk. i didn't claim to be an engineer or programmer idiot, show me where?
i have the highest possible german school degree, called abitur and went to university. but it's not topic relevant. you ask all this questions as if you were some old pervert trying to get a date
get back to your old rotten wife if you have one.

Thanks for providing more "facts". You've just backed up my
assumptions about you. A) You're young and inexperienced. B)
You're not an audio professional. I don't know shit about
your dsp knowledge either but I'm willing to bet you have'nt
got a degree in EE do you?

The fact of the matter is that I agree that the Blue Tubes EQ's are not the most musical sounding EQ plugins out. I did'nt need to look at the results on my oscilloscope to come to that conclusion.

But to post a graph and make the ridiculous statement that because one curve does'nt exactly match another everyone with "good" ears must agree that curve A) sounds "good" and curve B) sounds "bad" is just plain ignorant.

Have nice life....you'll enjoy it more once you've grown up.

Cheers.....CL

i don't have a degree in EE, does this change something? dude enjoy your little life, you've wasted more time here than me. i don't want you to get a heart attack from posting in forums.

[snooky]

ehi ehi ehi.. don't fight please.
I understand what defjamm was saying here. Or at least I believe so (tell me if I'm wrong).
Sometimes dsp/plugins developers claim an "analog" behaviour but their products haven't an "analog" behaviour at all. Defjamm is saying an "analog" equalizer should have at least an analog "frequency" response shape (eliosound here is trying to come close to a known analog curve, here the example). I think there is too much abuse of "vintage", "warmth", "analog", "clone", "replica" in products now, and too many guis derived from photos of classic hardware monsters. And there is too much approximation instead, if you go in the developer section you'll discover someone is trying to emulate sine lfos with parabolas or other evil things, and this "someone" is about the 80% of developers. Now. If you call this thing "emulation", "musical toy", "tool" everything is ok, everything is beautiful. If you call this thing "fairchild", "neve", "gml", ehi, something is going really wrong. This my humble opinion.

good one!

[hifiboom]

okay then lets shake the hands agein.

This is nothing personal!

I agree, for a real emulation the curve has to be like the simulated analog thing...

But the graph still give the wrong impression that every analog EQ has the same curve...

[Eiosis]

When I decided to buy the Nomad plugs, I worked with the demos of both the AS and BT plug-ins, and found that the Blue Tube plugs were just not all that good, that they altered the sound in unpleasant ways and seemed to be ineffective overall, whereas the Analog Signature series are miles above their stablemates. They possess one of the most realistic "tube sound" emulation algos out there. [...] Its all about how the stuff bends your tracks in the ways you find most attractive. Arguments about math and curves and digital v. Analog are pointless. Its the sound that counts, and how you can get it all over things to the degree you intended.

The funny thing here is that both Analog signature and Blue Tubes equalizers are based on exactly the same algorithm. I mean, mathematically the same algorithm.

It's easy to proove this fact : search the settings, for one band equalization, which gives the same results for both BT and AS equalizers, i.e. the same equalization shape. If you substract two tracks which are equalized with these settings, you will obtain silence, maybe not digital black because of the differences in how interacts the settings with the algorithm for each equalizer. But with patience, you could obtain digital black.

So, what could we think ? Two identical algorithms, and one which seems to sound better than the other for some people. And that is the same thing for many other companies : they use the same algorithms for all their products. And I am sure that we could produce digital black between products made by different companies.

The same with EQ: the curve is important for a correct emulation and it is ONE part of modelling an analog gear EQ, but not everything.

So, what could we think ? We could think that we are all dumbs and that companies who use good old algorithms are trying to sell us very expensive shit. We could also think that the algorithm is only a part of the sound. Not exactly. The algorithm IS the sound. The way you tweak an algorithm MAKES the sound.

This is for example what I would call a real emulation.
http://www.uaudio.com/webzine/2006/august/index2.html
Modeling the diodes, FET, some slightly clipping and distortion in the circuits components, frequency colouring . Okay this is a compressor not an EQ. But its the same for any analog component, and synths too.
Its hard work, they measure every component of the circuit and how it reacts on different gain and frequencies. And then model this into software algorithms. Thats what I call recreation of analog gear.

Which is pretty much exactly what Kjaerhus are doing with their native VST plugs too

Perhaps 'most' in the big scheme of things, but a lot of the latest plugins DO indeed try to model each individual aspect of a hardware eq, a different model/set of algorithms for each component of the Unit to build up a much more complex whole.
http://www.kjaerhusaudio.com/aclm.php

Modelling is one thing. Getting rid of digital audio problems and limitations is another thing. You can make an accurate digital model of an electronic circuit without making an accurate reproduction of its audio characteristics.
UAD reproduces the nonlinearities of a compressor, but at the expense of oversampling, which introduces processing delay, eats much more processing power. In the version without oversampling, the nonlinearities are not reproduced. But it is probably a good emulation since they are aware of digital audio problems and artifacts.

But the graph still give the wrong impression that every analog EQ has the same curve...

At least, you could have exactly the same shape with many analog EQs, as digital EQs. The difference will be in the tuning, nonlinearities, audio path quality, "initial colour"...

'i don't say one curve is better than the other...i say: when you emulate device A that has a specific curve(ONE important thing), this curve is your REFERENCE. it's what you call GOOD, because you want this sound. but if you don't get the same curve in your emulation, then it's BAD, because you didn't come close to the REFERENCE.
i'm talking about the quality of the emulation. and if an emulation fails to deliver one important thing of the original, it's BAD.
edit: to be fair, not only blue tubes has this problem but a lot of digital eqs claiming to be analog modelled(at 44k and mostly in the high-mids, highs).

There is two sides of marketing : good and bad marketing.

Bad marketing : Take these pills. You will loose fat.
Good marketing : You can take these pills, but you'd better make sport to loose fat.

Bad marketing : Our plugin recreates the warmth of the most expensive analog gear. (But it does not reproduces the shape nor the nonlinearities of that expensive analog gear)
Good marketing : Our plugin shape is very close to the shape and phase behaviour of an analog circuit.

I prefer to make sport if I want to loose fat.

At least, this is only my humble opinion !

Fabrice,
Eliosound

[hifiboom]

thanks for response Fabrice ....
good points.

so in your words: I miss the accurate reproduction of the audio characteristics on many VST Tools.

those vintage classics are mostly that famous because of their special colouring they add, if the vintage software emulation only capture the general algo of an audio tool, I shouldn't really be named vintage emulation.

There is nothing wrong with a high-end digital EQ, but if I hear vintage I want something special, really modeled in detail.

Some people pay a million for a classic hand-made oldtimer car... So it would be the same if someone takes a Porsche and adds an classic car body and then sell this as an oldtimer. But it still feels like a porsche and not a classic...
But he keeps telling, it works the same: we have same horsepower, 4 weels, 5 gears...

I think its the same with these curves... they are part of an emulation but just alone they will not deliver the sound of the classic.

Some software EQs are quite expensive and if they are not a full reproduction of the classic, they should be priced in another range.

[hibidy]

i think the original question has gotten lost here. I own the Nomad Factory Analog Signature series and 2 UAD-1 boards. I dont own the Blue Tubes pack. I love both the Nomad and UAD-1 plugs, but they are really different. I use them, as Dylan says, to put "Sound all over" my tracks. When I decided to buy the Nomad plugs, I worked with the demos of both the AS and BT plug-ins, and found that the Blue Tube plugs were just not all that good, that they altered the sound in unpleasant ways and seemed to be ineffective overall, whereas the Analog Signature series are miles above their stablemates. They possess one of the most realistic "tube sound" emulation algos out there. They're easy on the eyes and the cpu...
Y'know, the PSP Analog Warmer is an odd phenomenom. Its one of the most beloved plug-ins out there, period. I dont think I've ever read a bad review on it. But in all honesty, the Voxengo AeonFlux, er, um, Analog Flux suite is just flat out better. Greater flexibility, better tape emulation and "analog sound".

Its all about how the stuff bends your tracks in the ways you find most attractive. Arguments about math and curves and digital v. Analog are pointless. Its the sound that counts, and how you can get it all over things to the degree you intended.

a. very nice post

b. with the nomad pack....you are talking about the "threesome" limiter/channel/eq?

c. psp analog warmer.......am I dense or did you mean vintage warmer?