Ok, so I AM biased (pun partially intended...), I love everything Michael Angel does with Nebula/Aqua stuff, and I think that he is one of the coolest and most generous and helpful guys. But with that aside, I have to say that these are great plugins. I suppose that the Aqua line that Michael (and AITB) has is especially great for people who don't have Nebula or are reluctant to invest into the seemingly never ending awesome libraries out there, AND with Aqua style, you purchase the plugin, not just the engine. I own a ton of Nebula libraries, and I also have all of Michaels Aqua plugins, and I love using them. They load faster for me, and I like the tweakability. And I will sheepishly admit that after over a year of working with the generic Neb GUI, I love to look at these beautiful interfaces. I'm an "old guy" who started in audio with all analog, so I guess I miss the cool hardware sometimes. So at the very least, go to CDSM's website and check out the great job they did for the GUI's on these new ones, they are actually quite stunning. Of course I also encourage you to buy them, these are not a redundant purchase. Thanks Michael for more amazing tools for our digital audio!!!
I've only compared demo of brimar tube vst vs nebula demo of the brimar.. and it sounds totally different.. I don't know maybe the nebula demo preset is different preamp/tube setting that rolls of highs so much. I liked it a lot (roll off..) and used some times..bu the new vst demo doesn't sound like this at all.. anyway.. I dig both!!
hellloo.. anyway.. i'm buying the nebula version of both finally see what if it shines so much as in demos hehe but if anyone could explain the sound difference (or lack of it) in vst and nebula versions i'd be grateful
I just want to say that I'm gonna taste both bundles (nebula and vst) myself and will report back.. I got an amazing deal with Michael, he is a very kind an generous man, thanks! From what I tested yesterday with nebula programs, they are just great (love mullard already) and the guis in vst look so cool.. yeah
I only have the Nebula version, and have only recently begun the journey of listening to the library.
I have limited knowledge of the actual tubes and their characteristics ... I very much hope that we can get a community discussion started of user observations, preferences, etc, with regards to this huge collection.
For example ... I wonder what the significance of the 'Short' & 'Long' plates. WHY ??? What are the influences on the audio signal?
greekpeet wrote:Surprised there isn't any more responses.
Really love these programs.
Mullard LONG into medium into low makes everything sound better.
Surprised too at the responses
I gave a try to the Mullard suggestion ... was not really sure which patches you referred too ... but I ran the 'MUL_LP_M7K', followed by the 'MUL_LP_L5K'. Not really use to combining tube patches ... but I must say, what an interesting sound !
I'm restoring a very challenging project for a group, that needs all the help I can give.
The 2 tube patches run serially really helped control the nasty sounding hi hat and ride cymbal, and also greatly expanded the depth of the recording! AND, it's in MONO
I'd be very interested if I picked the 2 patches you were suggesting. I'm wanting to learn much more about these libraries, and would definitely like to hear suggested chains!
For a general clean-up sparkle, I have had great results with the mullard clean short plate tubes. In fact, that goes on every track somewhere. The radiotechinic (?) tubes are great for character and I like them driven on vocals. And if you just want to add some weight and smoothness, try one (or two) of the tube boosters. Experiment. As with much of Nebula, it is a subtle thing going on and the projects seem to benefit most when you have added a ton of them all over the project. The sonic build-up can be very nice if done correctly. I have my best results when I keep in my mind the concept of analog signal chains. I try to emulate, to a degree, the path each signal can take and how each "piece of hardware" can affect the next. I do quite a bit of batch processing of tracks long before the actual mixing stage. It works for me.