Incredible new EQ type for Nebula plugin

[bduffy]

Ouch. You know, this high-horse shit gets pretty tiresome.

if this is aimed at me,...you obviously inferring something wrong in tone...there is no "high horse shit" going on over here.....and nothing in that was aimed at you....i've just used and demoed so many "analogue" plugins that this is the reality IMO....you can pretty much achieve the same/similiar sound from most of them regardless of claims or price,..cause at the end of the day their implementation is dominated by those three basic things....if you like that sound,...then go at it with any of those plugs.....i just think the mysticism associated with analogueness has become materially misleading and deceptive

nor was this aimed at nebula by the way....i rate nebula....but i havent tried the new eq. Based on my experiences with the old nebula 3 free,...i find the eq and compressors impractical to use.... i find the reverbs, mics, phasers have a pleasant quality to them,....but not dramatically different than IR of similar gears,...even though they theoretically should be.....when i put it on every track, reducing the input and pushing the output to achieve neutral gain, i find the final mix has a noticeable difference that is pleasant, but that involves a lot of time consuming rendering on my single core pc.....but if you wait till your song is done before doing that,...its not that big a deal....i might even buy it....i like the spirit and forthrightness of the developers....purely my two cents....

OK, that's interesting: I wholly agree with you. I too have tried entire mixes with Nebula - as recommended beore - and remain unpersuaded by the results. I took you the wrong way, sorry. That could be because your paragraphs and sentences are really hard to read, mind you.

(sorry, I just gotta say something!)

[TotcProductions]

Shit, I registered with my Pro-Sounds email (for the new programs forum) and I think I may have purchased and registered on the other forum with my yahoo email...should I just re-register at the newer forum with my yahoo account, or will you recognize my username and approve my registration?

Peace

[bmanic]

Ouch. You know, this high-horse shit gets pretty tiresome.

True, but somewhere, at some point in time, the "analogue" sound has been completely falsified and wrapped into a "you must have this! it is special! you need it to succeed!" blanket in some secret government propaganda HQ.

The truth is: Very high end mastering grade analogue is CLEAN. Very VERY clean (Massenburg, Cranesong etc). Some designs from 60's and 70's are full of character and very "messy". They are not automatically magic. On the contrary, lots of times when you pull out that 1176 you go "Naah.. it's just too brutal".

Less emphasis needs to be put on "magic sound" and more on end results.

However, this does not change the fact that there are subtle differences that will and do impart it's signature on whatever material you are processing. It is up to the listener to choose if he gets a better listening experience from these subtleties or the musician/producer/composer if he gets better "vibes" and gets inspired. Some claim that they do which is perfectly fine by me.

Cheers!
bManic

PS. sorry for straying off topic on this one

[bermudagold]

@bduffy: Not a "wow" difference mind you. Just another flavor, not better or worse.

@zaphod: i totally agree with your price argument. Keep up the good work.

[Zaphod (giancarlo)]

I am familiar with the cumulative effects of gear across multiple tracks -- understanding such things is a small part of how I, um, you know, make a living -- and part of the tests I referred to earlier involved multiple tracks printed with Nebula and identical tracks printed with UAD plugs, all set rather painstakingly, actually. There was, very much in my opinion and at least in the case of the acoustic guitar tracks with which I was working, no appreciable difference.

to be honest I didn't try directly an UAD 1073, even if I listened some blind tests that velinas/mangel are preparing. It could be, I mean, UAD 1073 and nebula and the original 1073 could be really close, so close that you could not distinguish them (maybe the distortion behaviour of nebula could be more obvious sampling a tube equaliser)
My point is different:

1) in the first case, a company released after big efforts and a (long?) development a plug, you need an hardware card for running it, it is not so cheap and so on (because developments have a cost!!!!!)

2) in the second case, a guy spent around 100 eur for nebula2 + nat3, and in his little bedroom sampled a rented gear. After a couple of days (maybe more, because the process requires a bit of learning a little number of attempts before starting seriously), he released this program. Ready for sharing. Awesome.

[SongMonkey]

...a guy spent around 100 eur for nebula2 + nat3, and in his little bedroom sampled a rented gear. After a couple of days (maybe more, because the process requires a bit of learning a little number of attempts before starting seriously), he released this program. Ready for sharing. Awesome.

Can't argue with that in the slightest. It IS pretty awesome.

The future of this plug is going to be pretty intense.



Cheers.

[eduardo_b]

yes, 1.3.071 is mandatory. Other versions don't read programs sampled with "nat3 beta"

These must get updated continuously. I have 1.3.049 and I only downloaded it a few months ago. Are users never going to be notified of updates via e-mail? Just wondering.

[bermudagold]

2) in the second case, a guy spent around 100 eur for nebula2 + nat3, and in his little bedroom sampled a rented gear. After a couple of days (maybe more, because the process requires a bit of learning a little number of attempts before starting seriously), he released this program. Ready for sharing. Awesome.

That is the promise of nebula right there. UAD or Liquidmix quality emulations without the hardware and high cost. And the emulations available to you will continue to grow as the number of users grow. That is in concept pretty awesome indeed.

[eduardo_b]

On the forum, Program File Area / High End Programs / EQ

It's torrent based, so hopefully a few peeps are seeding.

Not many. The torrent is doing nothing today. Anyone maybe hosting this one?

[Zaphod (giancarlo)]

yes, 1.3.071 is mandatory. Other versions don't read programs sampled with "nat3 beta"

These must get updated continuously. I have 1.3.049 and I only downloaded it a few months ago. Are users never going to be notified of updates via e-mail? Just wondering.

The developments are rather fast, and you need a new version quite ofter if you plan to download every new library. In general an update is not mandatory, but in this case we found a bug.
Yes, we advertised this version with a newsletter a couple of weeks ago.

[007]

[quote="bermudagold. ....That is in concept pretty awesome indeed.[/quote]

In concept? In reality too. There are many hi quality programs in Nebula.

[bduffy]

Ouch. You know, this high-horse shit gets pretty tiresome.

True, but somewhere, at some point in time, the "analogue" sound has been completely falsified and wrapped into a "you must have this! it is special! you need it to succeed!" blanket in some secret government propaganda HQ.

The truth is: Very high end mastering grade analogue is CLEAN. Very VERY clean (Massenburg, Cranesong etc). Some designs from 60's and 70's are full of character and very "messy". They are not automatically magic. On the contrary, lots of times when you pull out that 1176 you go "Naah.. it's just too brutal".

Less emphasis needs to be put on "magic sound" and more on end results.

However, this does not change the fact that there are subtle differences that will and do impart it's signature on whatever material you are processing. It is up to the listener to choose if he gets a better listening experience from these subtleties or the musician/producer/composer if he gets better "vibes" and gets inspired. Some claim that they do which is perfectly fine by me.

Cheers!
bManic

PS. sorry for straying off topic on this one

Yep, yep, absolutely: I've had it up to here with "analog" this or that. I see the word "warm" now, and I just want to tear my hair out! Bottom line: the title of this thread and arksun's elation kind of led me to expect something less subtle or subjective. I appreciate you and bermudagold pointing it out; I just got a little pinchy.

[Arksun]

Yep, yep, absolutely: I've had it up to here with "analog" this or that. I see the word "warm" now, and I just want to tear my hair out! Bottom line: the title of this thread and arksun's elation kind of led me to expect something less subtle or subjective. I appreciate you and bermudagold pointing it out; I just got a little pinchy.

Sorry if my descriptive side was misleading, wasn't my intention. Thats the problem when describing something, everyone has a different idea of what 'warm' and all the other superlatives actually mean.

I still stand by saying that this is one of the finest software eq's I have ever tried, really impressed the socks off me.

[007]

What is wrong with the word 'warm'? A very common description in classical music.

[eduardo_b]

What is wrong with the word 'warm'? A very common description in classical music.

Well, that works in classical music, but here in KVRland, warm is synonymous with the exalted analogue warmth, a form of distortion worshipped by some. Not me, but others.