Any suggestions regarding to Acustica Audio?

[duboy1996]

The best way I can think is to share a track with you. This track has at least one Acqua on each track of the mix. Mostly Gold2 but also Azure, Magenta and Green. All tracks are running through a 30ips setting with Satin in multi-track mode. Among other things I am using The Glue on the mixbuss. No AA on the mixbuss. I am using a Navy2 compressor, Scarlett and Aquamarine on the master chain, among other things.


https://soundcloud.com/musicofplexus/kkryhztalizzed

Thank you for sharing! That gives the general insight, very helpful!

[cfanyc]

Hi, I am new here. I am a UAD user, recently I was considering purchasing some Acustica Audio Plugins. However, I saw many bad reviews on AA(bad support, buggy), do those problems still exist? Is it worth to get AA's products?

Also, can someone explain the mechanism behind AA plugins more thoroughly? I heard they are ''sample-based" plugins. I am wondering how can a compressor be sampled? Shouldn't it be much less versatile and less flexible compared to hardware? How do you 'sample' a hardware?

As briefly as I can state an opinion and justify it on this subject that touches upon
several topics (ie analog vs digital, proper sw engineering, professionalism etc)
where people seem to have very strong-rooted beliefs:

1. aa gui usability, sw bugs, cpu consumption, support, resale-ability: a true nightmare.
If these things matter to you, stay away and never discuss again. Companies like UAD
(and many others) are in a different galaxy as to the professionalism with which they treat their products and customers.
2. Price: overpriced even at heavily discounted intro prices; essentially all the plugins are
containers for impulse responses with a pretty interface running on the exact same underlying code.
3. Sound: opinions here differ dramatically. On one hand the aa fans claim that
the aa plugins sound "analog", "3D", "have vibe", and that non-aa plugins are "flat", "plastic",
"cardboard" etc. (note that this is mostly for the eqs because even among the aa faithful, the compressors distortion etc are considered not competitive with top-tier alternatives).

It is also important to notice the following fact: contrary to aa marketing, over the years 100s of grammys have gone to stellar productions done by engineers that use hybrid and in some cases full ITB worklfows with the exact maligned plugins that aa claims to be vastly superior to.
No professional-grade major award winning music has been produced with aa plugins, afaik.

Additional thoughts:
(1) I have not heard one single example of an aa mix that
is of top professional quality or superior to a mix done ITB by a skilled engineer.
(2) On the contrary I have seen blind tests where
people who swear by analog cannot tell analog from digital, and
(3) blind tests where people who swear by aa prefer the algorithmic alternative and rate aa worst.
(4) At the same time some of the very pioneers
of the classic analog gear (consoles etc) are on record stating that digital "smokes"
analog in the qualities that they were trying to engineer in their classic gear.
(5) Personally as an amateur as my skills and knowledge advanced over the years
I have found that results of top quality (as good as top commercial releases)
can be achieved with skillful and disciplined execution of mixing and mastering principles and any reasonable collection of professional plugins.
I have found, for example, that with careful blind testing the "3D magic" of
acustica preamps and HD is not even 1%
of the 3D effect that mixing basics like levels (fader moves and automation), panning,
stereo width, reverb/delays, and eq can achieve.

In other words, placebo effects, lack of rigorous (and most important blind and gain matched) evaluation of alternatives, dogmatic faith in the "magic" of analog gear, ignorance of
what modern digital can do, and subpar mixing/mastering skills are the fuel of the aa mythology.

[Zaphod (giancarlo)]

about the fact that the engineers who take awards do not use our products, you're a little behind, I think to 2016
It's interesting to see that Dave, after so many years, has decided to make a plug-in with us. We're honored for that.
So I think that your points have some contradiction, if all the plug-ins were the same, and we only had problems (latency, resource usage) or placebo effect maybe he would have chosen someone else, or he wouldn't have done anything, who knows.

[cfanyc]

about the fact that the engineers who take awards do not use our products, you're a little behind, I think to 2016
It's interesting to see that Dave, after so many years, has decided to make a plug-in with us. We're honored for that.
So I think that your points have some contradiction, if all the plug-ins were the same, and we only had problems (latency, resource usage) or placebo effect maybe he would have chosen someone else, or he wouldn't have done anything, who knows.

BS.

The fact that an engineer decided to sell products to make money with
you does not mean that award winning music is produced with your products
or that the extravagant claims have an relationship to reality.

[Zaphod (giancarlo)]

he could make money by making a product with someone else. And as he says, many people have asked him, especially companies with higher turnover - and that could guarantee a much higher income than a boutique company.
On award winning, google's your friend. I'm not going to make a list here, it's public data.

[cfanyc]

he could make money by making a product with someone else. And as he says, many people have asked him, especially companies with higher turnover - and that could guarantee a much higher income than a boutique company.

First it is deeply ironic that you claim quality because of a couple of endorsements.
You have built your whole company product line more than 10 year now
on non endorsed software sampling and you do not dare to even say officially what units you are sampling.

Look, I do not care if you finally got a couple of endorsements. Endorsements are not results
(great music, great mixes, music awards, music sales).

Read my post again as to the claims vs the reality of what you and your proxies
promise to your customers vs what you deliver, and lets debate that, not your 2-bit
10 years late endorsement story.

Oh and since i have your attention, can your company finally enable transfer of the software without clients having to pay in fees more than it actually costs to buy the software new? As it stands, your policy has effectively disabled resale or simple gifting of the software, and that imo is reprehensible treatment of customers (and quite possibly non compliant to EU law).

[Zaphod (giancarlo)]

I've read your points, but they can't be justified by logic.
You are a person hidden by a keyboard, who tries to explain to others with an "afaik" that our products are not used by "award winning engineers", which is a false statement.
You say it doesn't matter that an endorser has chosen us, that it's all a placebo effect. Indirectly you're accusing not only us, but also them of not being able to distinguish a product that sounds good from one that has a placebo effect, or of doing so with a money-related motivation.
But I showed you that money doesn't explain certain choices, and it doesn't explain the long list of award winning users who buy our products instead of receiving them for free.
I speak for facts, and it's not an "afaik". Otherwise, remove your "afaik" and show us that you are right in your statements.

[0degree]

I'm evaluating currently AA plugins and I do have mixed feelings about them.
They sound a bit better than algo plugins but maybe it's just me. CPU consumption is really high which is kinda deal breaker sometimes. Never had any support request so far and can't tell if it's ok. Bugs are fixed rather quickly unless there's some deeper technical reason then it may take a bit longer (recent issue with Ivory4 for example).

The technology AFAIK has it's limitations - for example it's not possible to correctly sample super quick attack and release times of compressors but on the other hand with Nebula one can sample some really crazy vintage and rare analog gear. There are also 3rd party Nebula libraries with some cool sampled hardware.
If I remember correctly ages ago Focusrite used similar sampling approach - Liquid Mix. I remember it had it's own limits like problems with lower part of the spectrum, but I guess the technology was improved by AA during the years.

[cfanyc]

I've read your points, but they can't be justified by logic.
You are a person hidden by a keyboard, who tries to explain to others with an "afaik" that our products are not used by "award winning engineers", which is a false statement.
You say it doesn't matter that an endorser has chosen us, that it's all a placebo effect. Indirectly you're accusing not only us, but also them of not being able to distinguish a product that sounds good from one that has a placebo effect, or of doing so with a money-related motivation.
But I showed you that money doesn't explain certain choices, and it doesn't explain the long list of award winning users who buy our products instead of receiving them for free.
I speak for facts, and it's not an "afaik". Otherwise, remove your "afaik" and show us that you are right in your statements.

You continue to argue points that I did not make, continue to fail to respond to the ones that I did,
and insinuate that my arguments are not valid because I am posting anonymously
in an anonymous forum. I gather from this that you are badly losing the argument.

You said that "Google is my friend" about the imaginary major music awards that acustica users have achieved when using acustica. (that is my argument not whether someone
who made their fame using Waves, UAD, hardware etct etc to win music awards)
licensed you their name to use in a product so that you can together make $$$$).

Well, "my friend Google" only returns endless pages about people complaining about your
buggy, half-baked, non-resalable, placebo, toy-like, cpu-destroying, computer crushing,
over-priced products that for more than decades now you promise to fix elementary
deficiencies like working compressor action and meters, user-saved and recalled presets, continuity
between demo and paid versions etc etc.

So, show me 1 (ONE) Grammy winning album or song mixed with acustica plugins.
There must be one after all this years, right? Waves and UAD have hundreds.
Heck, Waves, UAD, and McDSP (among others) have themselves received the Grammy award
for technology and products that have consistently enabled the professional music community
make the music winning the major awards (and in the case of McDSP for countless mixing/editing movies with many Oscars as well).

And finally, I continue to hear crickets about the resale issue.

[dark water]

A few years ago, Nebula 3 Pro offered excellent value versus algorhythmic vst plugins, with its AlexB consoles, Tim Petherick compressors, Cupwise compressors and effects, VXNT reverbs and CD Soundmaster tapes etc.
I have used Nebula 3 Pro since about 2008.

However whilst Nebula 4 has now been released and offers the same great vehicle for those 3rd party libraries mentioned above, it must be noted that many algorhythmic vst plugins now sound just as good - and some arguably sound better - whilst arguably offering a much easier workflow than those Nebula 3rd party libraries.
Also, support and licensing for Nebula 3 Pro has now been ditched by the company, thus irritating a fair few loyal customers and third party developers.
(It should be noted that most of us have cloned our C Drives with working versions of Nebula 3 Pro, but it sucks that to "officially" be supported with licensing issues, Nebula 3 Pro users must upgrade to Nebula 4 now).
The point is, at what stage in the future will Acustica Audio ditch Nebula 4 in a similar fashion and expect you to just upgrade to Nebula 5 for about $200?


With regards to Acqua plugins, some of these offer excellent sounding versions of famous preamps (eg in Viridian), EQs (eg in Gold 3) and 'non-smearing' delay (eg in Lemon).
However, there have been issues with Acqua compressors noted elsewhere regarding their meters and low-end problems.

I own about 7 Acqua plugins and about 30 third party libraries for Nebula 3 Pro (including those mentioned above in my post).
They offer a very good flavour of hardware and I use the Nebula 3 Pro libraries (particularly AlexB consoles and the VNXT reverbs) more than the Acqua plugins, but I'm not overly convinced by those who say that their sound is much better than the best algorythmic vst plugins now available in 2019 / 2020. Workflow and CPU issues can be subjectively annoying too.


If you're tempted to spend about $400 - $500 on Acustica Audio products, I would advise getting one EQ, one preamp and one compressor from your favourite sounding Acqua choices (plus maybe Lemon if you fancy some unique delay), and then Nebula 4 plus one AlexB console, one or two Cupwise effects, one or two Tim Petherick compressors and one or two VNXT reverbs.
You will be well covered then with the best of what Acustica Audio products can offer

[plexuss]

TL;DR But there is some of that "vibrancy" I mentioned. Welcome to the world of AA. I personally find it all annoying, but thats the way it goes.

[dark water]

TL;DR But there is some of that "vibrancy" I mentioned. Welcome to the world of AA. I personally find it all annoying, but thats the way it goes.

A rather mean and unnecessary comment (directly under mine), especially given that I only tried to provide a few suggestions of Acustica Audio products that he might want to check out and a bit of background context for the OP's opening question.

Why is it okay for you to post 3 times in this thread - and one of those being just as long as my post - and then snidely criticise others (who have used Nebula for more than a decade) when they try to honestly answer the OP's question and to give some suggestions in one post?

[cfanyc]

A few years ago, Nebula 3 Pro offered excellent value versus algorhythmic vst plugins, ...

many algorhythmic vst plugins now sound just as good - and some arguably sound better - whilst arguably offering a much easier workflow than those Nebula 3rd party libraries.

Also, support and licensing for Nebula 3 Pro has now been ditched by the company, thus irritating a fair few loyal customers and third party developers.
...
...
but I'm not overly convinced by those who say that their sound is much better than the best algorythmic vst plugins now available in 2019 / 2020. Workflow and CPU issues can be subjectively annoying too.

excellent points that I agree with 100%

[dark water]

^^ thank you


To me, Acustica Audio has created (and still does create) excellent sounding software, and third party developers have really helped with this.
But I don't think it now has 'the jump' on other excellent software plugin companies compared to about 5-10 years ago.
One's mileage may of course vary.
As music-makers, we are now happily blessed with many wonderful options to suit our own subjective tastes, workflows and budgets

[kmonkey]

So, show me 1 (ONE) Grammy winning album or song mixed with acustica plugins.
There must be one after all this years, right? Waves and UAD have hundreds.
Heck, Waves, UAD, and McDSP (among others) have themselves received the Grammy award
for technology and products that have consistently enabled the professional music community
make the music winning the major awards (and in the case of McDSP for countless mixing/editing movies with many Oscars as well).

And finally, I continue to hear crickets about the resale issue.

I don't like AA either, last year imho they are rehashing old products and all that but honestly you are mistaken.

I know at least one person which won a lot of awards and is using their products. Google Serban Ghenea. Seriously that dude is light years above everyone else in the industry, let alone us two dudes which never even released anything usable. He is winning a lot of awards and he is using AA plugins. I don't think he is endorsed.

And i am pretty sure i saw at least 5 well know mixing engineers which are famous (like Dave Pensado, Joe Chiccarelli etc.). NOT in AA videos i saw them talking at youtube but in the background they had AA plugins. I don't think AA is lying about that.

I am not defending Acustica but to me it looks like you are blaming them for not being able to find answers for your question (like famous people using their products).

I don't understand why you demand CEO to list you famous people when it fact it really is common knowledge.

It's kinda like those people "flat earthers" who demand scientist to prove them that earth is round because they can not understand how is that possible. So in fact they demand something and noone is listening them. Scientist aren't ones to blame if "flat earthers" can't understand let alone comprehend what is know for centuries.

Yet for some reason these people think they are entitled to get attention and time wasted by someone else.

Weird generation of people. Truly weird.

Btw what does this mean? Heck, Waves, UAD, and McDSP (among others) have themselves received the Grammy award for technology and products that have consistently enabled the professional music community make the music winning the major awards

That doesn't even exist. There is Technical Grammy award and from your list McDSP isn't in it. Am i mistaken? Actually only Waves won it for plugins. https://www.grammy.com/recording-academ ... ers/awards

UA won it for something else. And that's that.

You do realize these tech "awards" are paid awards you do realize that right? Of course noone will admit that but it's also "common knowledge"