Ferric TDS vs Nebula StuderA800 (R2R) vs UAD

[Funkybot's Evil Twin]

I'd love the fatso though..

Over-rated IMO...

I've never tried the UAD version but have plenty of hours with the hardware. I love it to bits!

Cheers!
bManic

Yeah, I definitely think the FATSO is one of the few UAD plugins that's rated just as high as it deserves (FATSO, Studer, EMT 250). The problem is it's a DSP killer. I think I can only run 6 instances on a Duo vs. 20 instances of the Studer.

The thing with the FATSO is it's not subtle in the slightest (which can be a very good thing).

[odd]

So - under the premise of finding a transparent tape emulation for imparting only what a traditional use of professionally setup tape in a modern studio would, ie. as a 'channel strip' effect - what's the best out there?

[Zaphod (giancarlo)]

When you emulate something and want to call it an emulation you really need to cover the whole range.

Speaking about a flight emulation, it doesn't mean that I should "die" really when the airplane crashes. So it depends on what you are looking for. We are speaking about "virtual" instruments here, and if you are not interested in a particular behaviour, it doesn't matter if the behaviour is covered or not. It would better, I agree, but at the end of the day we should analyze if it satisfies "common" requirements or not. Using a real tape, I think very few guys would use it in that way.

Back to the example, I'm sure a complete emulation would be better, but I would prefer a good simulator with fixed constraints than a complete simulation but a bit less accurate in everything.

[Tony Ostinato]

there was a thing discussed on 30 rock when tracy is doing a porno video sim.

one of the writers is saying how it can't be done because of the "uncanny chasm" where as a sim gets closer and closer to perfection its remaining flaws become more and more glaring.

hi cites the animation in "toy story" and tracy goes "ahhh i like it" and then in polar express and tracy goes "aggghhh im frightened make it stop".

i call this the 90% syndrome, once anything gets to 90% perfect the remaining flaws are exponentially harder to overcome and it drives you more and more crazy.

[Tp3]

It would better

I'm not sure really... just as it would be "better" to die in a flight simulator just for the sake of the
simulation itself...

I agree, but at the end of the day we should analyze if it satisfies "common" requirements or not

Just as with flight simulator. there, the "common requirements" are to simulate real experience AS CLOSE AS
POSSIBLE as far as the actual experience goes BUT with defined constrains (it won't blow you to bits if
you crash to a mountain )

Back to the example, I'm sure a complete emulation would be better, but I would prefer a good simulator with fixed constrains than a complete simulation but a bit less accurate in everything.

But that's kind of oxymoron... when you have "fixed constraints" it wont be called "FULL simulation" - by definition
(I think most, if not all, VST simulators act this way...what sets them apart is the EXTENT of the "constrains").

I'm surprised that bM said that the "extra inch" is like 95% of the sound. if it were like that, ALL comparisons
between this or that audio file/vst or HW processor - would yield utterly FINAL results. there would be almost
no argue.

As we all know, things are FAR (like, F-A-R) from that

Just my 0.02

[Zaphod (giancarlo)]

@tp3: I'm just explaining why in my opionion a good emulation could be good without being a complete replacement of every possible aspect. Or why a good emulation could be better than an other one, even if limited to a particular task (so not complete in every aspect, but very good for a specific task).

I try to make an example which is simpler to understand. There is a lot of analog gear around with a an extended frequency range capability. Now you could think that a complete replacement (in hardware design) should be not limited to 5 Hz - 24 Khz. But you know that, if you run 48 Khz frequency rate, you will never use this feature, so you don't need something which could run perfectly @ 1 Mhz.So think a bit: is it better something good in a limited frequency range or something which works very well till 1 Mhz, but is less accurate from the emulation point of view? because the question is that one.

[Tp3]

@tp3: I'm just explaining why in my opionion a good emulation could be good without being a complete replacement of every possible aspect. Or why a good emulation could be better than an other one, even if limited to a particular task (so not complete in every aspect, but very good for a specific task).

I try to make an example which is simpler to understand. There is a lot of analog gear around with a an extended frequency range capability. Now you could think that a complete replacement (in hardware design) should be not limited to 5 Hz - 24 Khz. But you know that, if you run 48 Khz frequency rate, you will never use this feature, so you don't need something which could run perfectly @ 1 Mhz.So think a bit: is it better something good in a limited frequency range or something which works very well till 1 Mhz, but is less accurate from the emulation point of view? because the question is that one.

Gian, friend

You seem to have got me wrong :

I AM WHOLE HEARTEDLY WITH YOU AND I WHOLE HEARTEDLY AGREE WITH YOU.

You really shouldn't have gone to great lengths just to prove something I utterly agree with

The concept of not being "good enough" is carved in stone to my sig (right below the end of my post)

It just happened that I found it a little strange that you kinda "apologize" for being "really good" (or good ENOUGH) by acknowledging that using a COMPLETE emulation "should be better" ("I'm sure a complete emulation would be better" - in your words). kinda makes one wonder : why DON'T they kill flight trainees, when they "crash" in flight simulators ?
you do need to simulate the experience to its fullest, don't you ?...

The answer is, IMO : there is a point when "enough is enough". beyond that you're just being anal.

I don't know... this emulation game is starting to get on my nerves too much people, in too many levels
of expertize (half of the post participants could be at the age of BAR-MITZVA... )... having WAY too many opinions. WAY.

As much as I am a Nebulan... that's way I like Bootsie so much

[bmanic]

When you emulate something and want to call it an emulation you really need to cover the whole range.

Speaking about a flight emulation, it doesn't mean that I should "die" really when the airplane crashes. So it depends on what you are looking for. We are speaking about "virtual" instruments here, and if you are not interested in a particular behaviour, it doesn't matter if the behaviour is covered or not. It would better, I agree, but at the end of the day we should analyze if it satisfies "common" requirements or not. Using a real tape, I think very few guys would use it in that way.

Back to the example, I'm sure a complete emulation would be better, but I would prefer a good simulator with fixed constraints than a complete simulation but a bit less accurate in everything.

I would hardly call the Nebula tapes being in the "common" range. Drums were usually tracked quite hot on to tape, usually to chop off the peaks and give it that flat limited sound. This is currently something Nebula can not reproduce properly and is a huge limitation.

For mastering and subtle tonal shaping Nebula is actually ideal and works better than anything else that I've tried.

Cheers!
bManic

[bmanic]

I'm surprised that bM said that the "extra inch" is like 95% of the sound. if it were like that, ALL comparisons
between this or that audio file/vst or HW processor - would yield utterly FINAL results. there would be almost
no argue.

No. You misunderstood me. I disagreed with the other poster about nebula just missing a few inches.. for me, and most likely for many others, being able to properly slam the tape at hot levels is a big deal and the main charm of tape. If I want subtle tonal and dynamic variations there are a number of other processes that I can turn to.. what is UNIQUE about tape is the way it saturates and clips the transients. Especially at relatively hot levels.

Because these levels can not be reached with nebula I argue that it's missing 95% of the typical use of tape within a mixing scenario, at least in my opinion. At least it sure as hell isn't just about inches here or there. There's a very real and a very large portion missing from the current Nebula implementation.

Here is my original quote:

Looks like you missed my point. We are not just missing "extra inches".. we are missing like 95% of tape emulation in Nebula, at least if you want to use tape as an effect and not just fairy dust.

Note that I said "at least if you want to use tape as an effect and not just fairy dust..". From this view it is undeniably true but if a person uses tape for subtle tonal and dynamic changes then it's of course not true. It all depends on what requirements you have of tape.

Just like a compressor.. you could have a perfect emulation of a 1176 within the first 2dB of gain reduction.. but what if it can ONLY create those 2dB of gain reduction? You'd mis almost the whole operational range of the device and couldn't use it at all the way it has been used for decades. Could we call that a proper emulation? Not in my opinion.

Cheers!
bManic

[audiovet]

DELETED

[Tp3]

No. You misunderstood me

OK. sorry.

for me, and most likely for many others, being able to properly slam the tape at hot levels is a big deal and the main charm of tape

Because these levels can not be reached with nebula I argue that it's missing 95% of the typical use of tape within a mixing scenario, at least in my opinion. At least it sure as hell isn't just about inches here or there. There's a very real and a very large portion missing from the current Nebula implementation.

Funny (or not) but the net is full of reports of the UAD S800 "breaking apart pretty quick"... (AKA "fart").

Not only this, your friend, Mr Kingston, said that tape was NOT meant to be hit hard

You can drive them hard up to a point, and then it clips and wrecks.
no, it is not strange that UAD would put out an expensive tape sim that craps out so easily when driven hard, especially when the source they are emulating behaves exactly like that, too

Might be that I misunderstood him also ?

If so, then this is the sign for me that a new Babylon tower is being build. so action is to be taken...

Good night, gentlemen !

[Kingston]

Not only this, your friend, Mr Kingston, said that tape was NOT meant to be hit hard

Then again,

That's not all I said. But I also understand your drive to argue for arguments sake - the KVR way.

1. Tape machine will budge into a complete fart-out when pushed. Regardless of settings, tape width or personal preferences, it will simply run out of headroom. And it will sound bad. You're not supposed to use it this way obviously, unless for a deliberate effect.

No point in using tape for anything else but that deliberate effect. We don't want them as recorders anymore. At their absolute best they are worse recorders than modern digital gear in every measurable scale.

Like bmanic, I've already got too much other stuff for that subtle 2dB. That's not what I'm looking for with tape.

[futurefields]

1. Tape machine...complete fart-out when pushed...

No point in using tape for anything else but that deliberate effect.

Agreed. No point in using tape other than for that fart-out effect. Running tape just *kinda* hot sounds like sh1t.

[audiovet]

DELETED

[UltraJv]

Not only this, your friend, Mr Kingston, said that tape was NOT meant to be hit hard

Then again,

That's not all I said. But I also understand your drive to argue for arguments sake - the KVR way.

1. Tape machine will budge into a complete fart-out when pushed. Regardless of settings, tape width or personal preferences, it will simply run out of headroom. And it will sound bad. You're not supposed to use it this way obviously, unless for a deliberate effect.

No point in using tape for anything else but that deliberate effect. We don't want them as recorders anymore. At their absolute best they are worse recorders than modern digital gear in every measurable scale.

Like bmanic, I've already got too much other stuff for that subtle 2dB. That's not what I'm looking for with tape.

you and bmanic should get married.

Ive never read such moronic information in my life in a thread.

A KVR marriage? but, but where would we put the thread?