Login

AlexB EQs vs Waves, UAD, Softube...

Officially Licensed 3rd Party Developer Libraries
Free 3rd Party Programs

Re: AlexB EQs vs Waves, UAD, Softube...

Postby AlexB » Thu Jul 01, 2010 10:41 am

I'm sorry but unfortunately I haven't saved the preset. I have done this test for my curiosity and after having listened the results I have decided to share this.

I have processed the drum buss with one EQ only (one instance for band: low, mid, high).
With nebula I have had need less dB than other plugins.

TLQ is 3kernels
WMQ is 3kernels
CLQ is 3kernels
VMQ is 5kernels
73Q is 5kernels

To my ears is evident that native plugins sound flat, lifeless and without the original dynamic of the song.
Mix with the ears, not with the eyes...
Facebook
WebSite
User avatar
AlexB
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 578
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2010 6:28 pm
Location: NW Italy

Re: AlexB EQs vs Waves, UAD, Softube...

Postby ParadigmX » Thu Jul 01, 2010 12:05 pm

Much as i love the neb eqs and such, i find the workflow just so much worse than UAD i tend to use UA stuff the most. I also only have a E6600 with 2gb ram so cant use that much nebula without cpu overload, especially with a few vstis running.

I think they compliment each other wonderfully, UA for most eqs, all compression, re201, moog fliter etc, and use the nebula preamps for subtle tone and a few cuda reverbs.

If i ever upgrade to a nice i7 with 12gb ram ill prob use neb more but the workflow is still less than ideal (one eq band per instance for example).

I love both.
ParadigmX
User Level IV
User Level IV
 
Posts: 44
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 7:46 pm

Re: AlexB EQs vs Waves, UAD, Softube...

Postby AlexB » Thu Jul 01, 2010 12:44 pm

I prefer the sound over the forwflow, so I render the tracks to save CPU-RAM. I use the S****x EQ to cut only.
A full mix with top class plugins as UAD, Softube, Waves etc. can't compete with the same mix with Nebula stuff. 8-)
Mix with the ears, not with the eyes...
Facebook
WebSite
User avatar
AlexB
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 578
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2010 6:28 pm
Location: NW Italy

Re: AlexB EQs vs Waves, UAD, Softube...

Postby tumburu » Thu Jul 01, 2010 4:02 pm

I also prefer the sound but if you have to finish a mix in 4-5 hours, then have the producer asking for modifications for another hour so that the mix is done the same day, Nebula can't take you there. A UAD Quad can, it's an impressive system.

If you don't do this for living you can, certainly take your time and render everything, tweak the tracks to death and all. But if you do make a living doing this every day, you have to find a way to integrate Nebula in an efficient workflow.

For me, Nebula comes only where other eqs fail to give good enough results and also in mastering, where I tend to rely exclusively on Nebula. But I also have a Metric Halo interface that I use for summing the busses, with the character goodies on each bus (kinda like a custom console), and it sounds beautiful.
User avatar
tumburu
Vip Member
Vip Member
 
Posts: 430
Joined: Tue Mar 30, 2010 11:00 pm

Re: AlexB EQs vs Waves, UAD, Softube...

Postby paulrussell » Thu Jul 01, 2010 5:32 pm

Same for me. The CLC eQ is lovely and creamy, worth using on the mixbuss, but to have 20+ tracks all with several instances of Nebula on each channel just for EQ is cumbersome to say the least. Especially in Sonar where they all show up as 'Nebula Core II 64' in the FX bin.

I sincerely hope that Nebula 4 allows us to combine multiple programs into one interface to make EQ usage a workflow reality.
User avatar
paulrussell
User Level IV
User Level IV
 
Posts: 46
Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2010 10:07 am
Location: Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Re: AlexB EQs vs Waves, UAD, Softube...

Postby tumburu » Thu Jul 01, 2010 5:38 pm

The "light" mixes are 50+ tracks around here, while the regular mixes come in 70+ area. Heavy ones are 100+. So you get the idea.

The combined programs will be probably as hungry as several Neb3 instances in a row.
User avatar
tumburu
Vip Member
Vip Member
 
Posts: 430
Joined: Tue Mar 30, 2010 11:00 pm

Re: AlexB EQs vs Waves, UAD, Softube...

Postby ParadigmX » Thu Jul 01, 2010 6:27 pm

paulrussell wrote:Same for me. The CLC eQ is lovely and creamy, worth using on the mixbuss, but to have 20+ tracks all with several instances of Nebula on each channel just for EQ is cumbersome to say the least. Especially in Sonar where they all show up as 'Nebula Core II 64' in the FX bin.

I sincerely hope that Nebula 4 allows us to combine multiple programs into one interface to make EQ usage a workflow reality.


See and with all due respect this is why UA is an industry standard and nebula is a niche product. I totally agree the sound is better but its a marginal improvement, not like cubase eq > UAD.

Sorry, just being honest. And as i said i do use both all the time. In fact virtually nothing else, have no native plugins except the odd thing, eg TBK filter.

Figure out the workflow issues and youll be millionaires.
ParadigmX
User Level IV
User Level IV
 
Posts: 44
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 7:46 pm

Re: AlexB EQs vs Waves, UAD, Softube...

Postby SWAN » Thu Jul 01, 2010 6:41 pm

yeah Im not a pro mixer so its fine for me to just implement an EQ band or a chain of Nebula then freeze and move to the next track...and I so love the quality.
Using plugins alone - I think I would not want to make music...using Nebula has made me much more happy working ITB - but I still use some outboard compression...and synth hardware of course.
Mac Mini i7 quad 2.6

Logic X
Live 9
Reaper
SWAN
Beta Tester
Beta Tester
 
Posts: 775
Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2010 11:16 pm

Re: AlexB EQs vs Waves, UAD, Softube...

Postby ngarjuna » Thu Jul 01, 2010 8:00 pm

I can understand how the workflow is a turnoff to some people, I definitely can, but it's a false assumption to think that all professional work comes with deadlines that make Nebula prohibitive; some professional circumstances, sure. But to say that Nebula is a "niche product" because it doesn't fit into your particulars is the same thing as saying that every engineer in the business is in exactly the same situation as you.

But I guess some people just don't understand the whole picture here: the reason Nebula eats so much CPU is because it is doing so much. It's largely subtle, yes, but those calculations are no joke, hence why your CPU has a stroke when you load it up with instances. This isn't a limitation of Nebula; they could easily code it to use less kernels. Guess what happens then...that's right, you lose the subtlety that made Nebula the better sound in the first place. It's not a workflow limitation on Nebula's part, it's that technology/Moore's law hasn't quite caught up to the processing duties that this kind of subtlety requires. All the devs have to do now is wait for the silicon to catch up.
User avatar
ngarjuna
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 778
Joined: Tue Mar 30, 2010 5:04 pm
Location: Miami

Re: AlexB EQs vs Waves, UAD, Softube...

Postby AlexB » Thu Jul 01, 2010 8:17 pm

I'm from old school... No more than 18-24 tracks, I make the sound during recording.. And yes, I do my personal production only, so I have a lot of time 8-)
I haven't many customers but the 90% are PRO and they use Nebula for mix-mastering.

But the Topic is : the SOUND, not the workflow... :D
Mix with the ears, not with the eyes...
Facebook
WebSite
User avatar
AlexB
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 578
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2010 6:28 pm
Location: NW Italy

PreviousNext

Return to 3rd party libraries

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests