Creamy 660 comp/limiter Cupwise Nebula release

[Cupwise]

First off- I recommend you get the demo set, even if you are pretty sure you want to buy. The programs in it, I think do a decent job of showing what the programs in the set can do and sound like (to a degree), but there are limitations so read the .txt that comes with the demos to see what the limitations are and consider how the full versions would be improved over them for not having those limitations.

This new comp set is the first I've done from a tube compressor design. The site has plenty of info about it, and from there you can see the manual which has even more.

I usually try to add something new when I do these. Last time it was SHQ (which is more optimized this time around), and this time it would be the program dependent release behavior. I'm pretty confident that this is the first release to get this right. I don't think most neb comps even have a program dependent behavior of any kind that's doing anything, let alone working correctly. I'm not just saying this casually... I'm prepared to back it up.

What happens is that with less compression you get slower release times. Below 2db gives the slowest times. This of course scales/changes depending on the setting you put the control at, and so I had to painstakingly model this behavior and compare it to the hardware at several settings and compression amounts. The result, I think, was worth it. And before anyone asks, yes I can go back and add this in to my older releases where appropriate, and I do plan on doing that but it will be when I get time to do it. Another thing, the attack control seemed to stay fixed at 'very fast' no matter what I threw at the hardware. I couldn't see anything program dependent with it. So that's how these programs are too, except I added in the ability to have slower times set manually which I think opens up more possibilities.

I sampled the unit 4 different times for 4 different 'root' compressor effects (vector sample sets) and 4 more times without compression for pass-through programs. Each of those 4 comps has the main program that was adjusted to be as close to modelling the hardware as I could get with my ~3yrs experience doing this, and then 3 alternate versions that behave differently. I'm not having tons and tons of alts this time because I think it just clutters things up. So instead, I put more time into those 3 alts. They are more than just simply alts using different feedback/feedforward detection ratios and/or different detection modes. For example, alt1 uses a combination of an RMS envelope with full feedback detection, which typically won't allow a fast attack, with a peak feedforward detector, in a way such that the peak detector catches transients but then the RMS detector takes over for compression after that. So you get RMS feedback compression but with fast attacks. alt3 uses an average of two different detectors. So as you can see these are more thought out and unique.

You might notice that the price is higher this time around, but it's not really much if you consider that in the past my comp releases have been split into two parts, which together come to only just below the price of this one, which hasn't been split. Another thing is that with the new advances (proper prog dependent behavior) comes more investment of time. Also I think my prices have always been fairly low in general, and even with this release I think it's still competitive for what's here. Then there's the fact of what this set is 'based on'...

So check it out here!

[Tapehead]

does the demo demonstrate the pass through color of this unit?

[Cupwise]

uh, nah not really. that would be pretty much impossible to demo without basically giving it away for free. you still get much of the tone character from the unit with the comp demos, but there is compression happening while you get that tone, whereas the pass-throughs give you that without compression (unless you drive them to saturate a bit). and the pass-throughs, like all programs in the full set, are 10k while the demos are 3k and 1k.

but even with that said, the demos still give you some of the tone of the unit, so if you like the way they sound, the stuff in the full set sounds better and has more options and ways you can use it.

[bmanic]

I don't know man.. almost 40$ is quite a lot of money for something that is still very "gimmickey". For instance the demo2 program doesn't seem to make much sense. At least not at first listen. Doesn't seem to make a big difference if the input is -60dBFS peaks or -10dBFS peaks. It still compresses and moves and does some weird stuff. A bug?

Demo 1 program works better but I'd still have to call it "nebula compressoresque", that is, it has that same problem that all other nebula compressors that at faster rates is causes that annoying intermodulation type noise (ran a very clean, low 808 type kick through it with the SHQ program).

I also tried changing the settings inside nebula (interesting that you use Pow10) but it's virtually impossible to get rid of that zing/zipper stuff at fast rates.

I've kind of given up on Nebula compressors. The concept just doesn't work all that well. It needs some new technology or something.

Cheers!
bManic

[Cupwise]

I don't know man.. almost 40$ is quite a lot of money for something that is still very "gimmickey". For instance the demo2 program doesn't seem to make much sense. At least not at first listen. Doesn't seem to make a big difference if the input is -60dBFS peaks or -10dBFS peaks. It still compresses and moves and does some weird stuff. A bug?

Demo 1 program works better but I'd still have to call it "nebula compressoresque", that is, it has that same problem that all other nebula compressors that at faster rates is causes that annoying intermodulation type noise (ran a very clean, low 808 type kick through it with the SHQ program).

I also tried changing the settings inside nebula (interesting that you use Pow10) but it's virtually impossible to get rid of that zing/zipper stuff at fast rates.

I've kind of given up on Nebula compressors. The concept just doesn't work all that well. It needs some new technology or something.

Cheers!
bManic

the demo2 program adds the threshold 2 control which you need to adjust along with thresh1 to get the amount of compression you want. if you have both thresholds all the way up it certainly doesnt always compress and move or anything like you describe. you lower both thresholds together to start getting compression. i just loaded some drums to quickly check and see if there was some kind of bug in the demo and i can't see anything like there being no difference between how it handles a -60db peak vs a -10db peak. i'm just not seeing that at all. it does have a very soft knee which seems to get softer as you pull thresh2 down, so the compression will happen over a wide dynamic range, but not that wide, and i'm not able to replicate anything like that here.

and yes low bass is still a commonly known weakness of nebula in general, and i did point that out in the full manual in a highlighted section linked to right from the top, and i recommend people check the manual out at the site, so it's not like i'm trying to pull anything over on anyone here. i also stress that people get the demo and see if they like it and can find uses for it before thinking about buying it, and the demos have all the same strengths and weakness as the full versions, apart from the limitations that they have and that the full ones don't.

so these won't work well with a low 808 style kick but maybe try them with something like vocals or a synth.


edit- i can't get it to do anything to peaks around -60db, let alone handle them the same as ones at -10. i'm adjusting all the settings and nothing is happening to those peaks. the thresholds just don't go down low enough to start compressing down there.

[bmanic]

Anyhow, I don't want to imply that there is something shady going on but rather that 40$ is quite a high price for a nebula program. In my opinion it is a bit too high.. though some of the AlexB programs are similarly priced.

With both thresholds all the way up in the demo 2 program the gain reduction meters still show -5 to -8dB of gain reduction happening even with the input signal way below -60dBFS peaks. Matching the output and comparing to the original, in this case a drum loop, there is clearly some dynamic changes going on still.. that is, the drumloop has changed considerably.

It's possible that my Nebula version is either outdated or one of the early beta releases (so it's newer than the release version).. I'll have to check that and confirm.

I'll try to post an audio example too so you can hear it.

Cheers!
bManic

[Tapehead]

I also seem to be unable to make any sense of this demo. I love Tim's other libraries though I use them only to complement my vst plugins. I especially like using Nebula after TDR compressor or some super clean EQ that way I can have total control of how much and what kind of color I want to add. In my experience all Nebula compressors are only useful as an addition to the fully featured VST compressors.

The real 660 is a phenomenal vocal compressor (probably the very best I have ever heard) and this is the first application where I tried Tim's 660...but somehow, the demo didn't work for me as expected even when I tried it after TDR (and before). I just can't seem to find any sweet spot, so I'd love to see how other people employ it .

[Cupwise]

With both thresholds all the way up in the demo 2 program the gain reduction meters still show -5 to -8dB of gain reduction happening even with the input signal way below -60dBFS peaks. Matching the output and comparing to the original, in this case a drum loop, there is clearly some dynamic changes going on still.. that is, the drumloop has changed considerably.

i'm just absolutely not able to get something anything like you describe here.

It's possible that my Nebula version is either outdated or one of the early beta releases (so it's newer than the release version).. I'll have to check that and confirm.

yeah can you tell me what exact version you are using? is it nebula 3 server, pro, or just nebula 3? and what version?

also, have you modified the nebula setup/xml in any way? other devs are recommending mods which might change how these programs work. do you have a 100% new, unmodded xml? the only mods i can vouch for as working with this release are the ones i have in the txt that comes with it. you don't even have to use the mods i suggest to get the comp working as it should, only to have the SHQ program working properly, and to be able to have up to 10ms look ahead.

in other words these comps, unlike many out there, are designed to work the way they do with a vanilla nebula setup. SHQ and look-ahead require mods to work.

The real 660 is a phenomenal vocal compressor (probably the very best I have ever heard) and this is the first application where I tried Tim's 660...but somehow, the demo didn't work for me as expected even when I tried it after TDR (and before). I just can't seem to find any sweet spot, so I'd love to see how other people employ it .

are you using an unmodded Nebula, or just one with the mods i suggest?

[Tapehead]

I have the original XML file and the one with the suggested modifications

[Cupwise]

Anyhow, I don't want to imply that there is something shady going on but rather that 40$ is quite a high price for a nebula program. In my opinion it is a bit too high.. though some of the AlexB programs are similarly priced.

yes many other devs' comps and other releases are 'similarly priced' if by that you mean 'more expensive'. and that's not 'some' of them. it's many of them, or even most releases for some devs. so this is the most expensive price i have, and it's still cheaper than lots of stuff out there. i think for you to say that, almost seems intentionally misleading, and it's entirely unfair to me.

there are plenty of preamp based libraries out there even, that are much more expensive than my compressors, which are vastly more complicated to make. by comparison, sampling a preamp is dead easy and anyone could do it, with minimal guidance. maybe in some cases the hardware has been worked on, to bring some rare piece to life so it can be sampled, but the actual sampling of a working preamp is simple. yet many of those still cost more than this (with the exception of henry's collection which is maybe too cheap).


but you mention one dev, and say SOME of his stuff is 'similarly priced'? really? look around, guy. compare my prices to those that are out there, but be more honest about it. this one time i decided that maybe i deserve a little more for my hard work. and by the way your '40$ for a nebula program' comment is also dishonest to the point of seeming intentional.

a) why have you ignored my comp releases that got praise and were UNDER 20$, and were commonly said to seem different from others

b) wait until i have a release with a higher price which gives it an easy thing to criticize

c) be totally misleading about how my prices are compared to other devs

d) suggest it's 'only a program'

it's a common thing to say this or that amount of work tweaking and fine tuning went into the programs in this or that release, and i'm sure lots do. more do recently. but anyone can check them. click edit. check out the glob page. check out the fun page, and the evf page. most console/preamp programs you'll have are probably mostly the same or very similar. so to me they can't be said to have been meticulously fine tuned. you might notice that now some comps out there are doing things differently. evf page particularly. i'd point out that before my rayphlex release had praise heaped on it, that all nebula comps probably had that page set up identically, as according to the acustica program template.

for you to say that this set is just a program, is totally unfair. i've been working on this thing for the past 2 months, and that's not counting the time it took to sample it (8 separate times). every program in this set is pretty custom. i figured out how to get program dependent release that was very much how the hardware handled its release judging from all the custom tones i threw at it to analyze.

i don't know how the demo could be working as you say it is. i think what would be more useful to me would be the dry drum loop BEFORE you run it through the demo program, and just to tell me what settings you use to get compression with the peaks of that loop hitting -60db. then i might be able to see what's going on, if i see the same results.


the price won't come down soon. if you want a cheaper nebula comp that lots of people seem to like, check out my others which seem to be under-priced drastically compared to competition. this one is STILL cheaper than plenty of nebula comps out there. you can tell me you don't think my program is working fine, and that's ok, and i will try to help you work it out, but suggesting my prices are among the highest is just unfair. i've noticed over the years that maybe if i had a more professional looking website, if i sampled more expensive equipment, and if i charged higher prices, and sprinkle a bit more hype in my marketing, i might have made tens of thousands of dollars by now. but instead i've tried to do new things with the engine, in almost every release i've done over 3yrs. for example my last reverb set has a length control. that's a simple thing that should be on every reverb, but as far as i know mine's the only one with it.

i'd like to add that there are devs that imo are pushing to do new things. and even lots of the stuff that's using the same program setups as plenty of other stuff, i'm sure many of those are still great and useful. but to me the pricing can get pretty absurd for some of those things and i've always seen it that way, so for someone to act like my prices are somehow among the higher prices out there, to me that's just going a bit too far. i mean compare my comp releases, which are much much harder to do and get them even remotely close to hardware, with console releases that don't have that type of complex behavior in them, and are much easier. and are still priced much higher.

[Cupwise]

I have the original XML file and the one with the suggested modifications

well, maybe this release just isn't for you. you haven't said anything really specific that would make me think the demo isn't working properly. other people seem to like it so i don't know. i can't think of any way to present programs from the library in any better way without giving too much away. sorry

[SWAN808]

Ill just put a note in to say Tim Cupwise compressors are the most functional Ive used (although TimP is upping his game soon)....most often Cupwise compressors respond as youd expect whereas all the others Ive bought have been a disappointment - acting weirdly and not really being any use. Rayflex and Slick9k are proper functioning compressors - although Ive not tried this new one. Somehow Cupwise seemed to make compressors work.

[SWAN808]

the other thing Ill say is I personally have advised Cupwise to charge more for his programs as previously I only paid something like $12 for his Rayflex compressor program packages - which were the best most people had heard!

This one I guess is not split and together for $40.

I understand why bManic has criticised because some nebula compressor programs simply do not work that well and can be disappointing. I suspect bManic is airing his disappointment based off other developers efforts...but all I can say is that Tims are better than the rest (IMO)

[kylen]

Well I have some comments about the 4 thoughts going on in here:
1. Tim's 660 comp release
2. Nebula sampling/repro ability
3. Pricing structures, market & product worth
4. Folklore

Just dealing with topic #1 (I don't know if I'll worry about the last 3 items)...
Maybe it's time to come up with dry loops, Nebula settings and audio wave results that do work as well as dry loops, Nebula settings and audio results that don't work.

I've suggested this over the years as folks share their liking for one comp or another. I think a lot of folks here publish stuff like that in posts (bManic being one of them) so I would expect some samples soon.

Unfortunately Nebula further complicates this (as you've alluded to elsewhere Tim) because internal 'developer' adjustments are published for the end user to adjust. Following many posts I've tweaked them myself (being ignorant of the actual impact) based on thoughts published by Nebula developers, preset developers and other end users (and have had to start with a stock install xml file recently). We don't have that 'problem' with other VST comps (maybe Compassion gets close to this) where internals can be adjusted and seriously make the plugin 'out-of-spec' in terms of what the developer intended to be the range of control.

But then with Nebula, to compare user experiences, you almost have to get a dry loop, Nebula settings, audio result, and XML file...makes it a little tricky.

[kylen]

I wanted to mention that I have purchased Tim's 660 and am trying it out in my current project which is a full rock mix (usually is). I feel like (more Folklore here) Tim is pushing Nebula as far as it can go in the compressor realm so I wanted to pick this up and see what I could do with it (at the introductory price).