Great insight @Talmi . Thank you.

Hopefully, because I find it easier to carve the sound.

 

Oh so jealous . . . I sold a few hardware synths to pull the trigger but then some family illnesses took me away from work for a week and all my "sale" money went to make up for lost earnings . . . Why oh why doesn't the universe want me to taste the sweet thrill of Nebula!

 

Lol. But now you are pulling my leg .
Off topic: impressive YT channel mate.

 

Sorry to hear that mate. I hope all is well now. Health first, other things come and go.

 

now you know what I will use it for! btw, for deal like yours, I'll buy it right away!

 

Thanks for your thoughts. I have N4 and many libraries, but I may have to try one of these new Acquas to compare.

 

No problem. There are several libraries on N4 (well made for N3 originaly) that now also exist in acquas (but they were done by AA, with the latest sampling tech for some, so they are bound to be different then the N3 libraries that emulate the same gear). Acquas all emulate different hardwares, they don't come from one single harware console, just like Nebula libraries, they all offer different flavors.
Here is a link I posted on another thread regarding the different models emulated by acquas : https://www.gearslutz.com/board/12277860-post5355.html

 

I came from N3. My take is that the workflow is much easier. It's more like an algorithmic plugin as far as usage goes. You still have to mind your gain staging and such (exactly like if you were using analog "real world" gear). In nebula, for an eq for example, you have to load the preset for the band you want, then adjust to taste. For acqua plugs, the bands seem to load dynamically by turning a dial/control or pressing a button.
And of course, CPU CPU CPU. It takes a certain amount of power to run these. I can only run one or 2 instances of Gold on my busses (dependent on what else I have loaded) before it's static city. But my music PC is OLD (AMD Phenom). As long as I can freeze a track, or bounce it, I can use as many as I need.
I'm hooked!

 

What do you think about SAND?

 

Thanks! I was just looking for that . . .

 

Better your leg than your finger.

 

Ah! I was just looking for such info. Good to have. Thanks!

Interesting. There are a number of N3/4 libraries that I really like and, w/ a new computer, I dont mind the additional workflow so much as I am mainly focused on my own projects (i.e. not mixing multiple projects everyday).

Thank you both!

 

I haven't used that particular SSL board so I can't comment on how faithful the sound is.
I think SAND is a great workhorse EQ and bus company. Pretty clean and precise but still analogue and can get a little edgy. Works well for pretty much anything you can throw at it.

I feel like Amethyst offers a pretty similar, easy workflow with the parametric EQ but the sound of that board is smoother in comparison to SAND and GOLD.
The sound on GOLD is fantastic, much more aggressive and colored which can be great for some situations but not as versatile and in my experience the workflow suffers with finicky comp sweet spot and metering.

So just trying to figure out which way to go for my purposes before the pre-sale ends!

 

@Calibre, I imagine the major factors in the decision would be workflow, type of material, and the color/tone you're after. So great advice in this thread so far to help you in your decision!

 

I pulled the trigger as well. I'm officially part of the fan club. I tested Amethyst3 and couldn't help it. I redid a mix I was working on, using Amerhyst on every bus, and all of a sudden the mix opened up. Everything got uncluttered. I had more depth and space. Impressed.

 

Just a curious thought: I always used native plugins to save up UAD beef since one Duo UAD processor won't make it through a whole mix. Last night, I was thanking that I had external DSP so that I could devote my whole native power for Amethyst.

 

I do not want to exaggerate but these are exactly my thoughts. Just pulled out some old mixes and had AIII play with them. Absolutely fantastic results with very less effort. I mean an effortless mixing is also part of your workflow to save some time. Never had this satisfaction with digital plugins.

I was even thinking of having some kind of schematic physical rack of midi knobs and faders permanently assigned to my favourite plugins .

 

Last edited: May 18, 2017

After seeing so much praise for these AA products I got the trial for Amethyst3 and Gold and I have to say they seem pretty great.
I am not completely sure about how I'm supposed to be using these plugins though. Can I just slap the whole strip on any track in my mix?
I like to make sampled beats and when testing it so far I've been putting it on my drumbreak/drum bus, sample and bass just to test it out on some simple stuff. Am I using it the right way?

Hopefully this question is not too dumb.

 

Just chiming in here, same results using Gold. I posted a thread about depth and dimension here:

https://audiosex.pro/threads/open-ness-dimension-depth.28274/

I'm about to work through this song using Gold. I think it's part of the solution I was looking for in addition to what is said about eqing and compression attack settings.
I tried Gold on another song that is similar to this, and the drums ended up sounding so 3d, it really blew me away.

I've been putting it on single mono tracks, drum buss, 2 buss, etc. I try to match the BUS/MIX/etc. selection to the application I'm using it on.
I really like the fact that the EQ's have HP/LP built in. This thing is forcing me to go in and re-eq things which isn't necessarily a bad thing.

 

I'd not use the whole strip just like that because you could choke your computer's processing power in no time. I'd say that you place the standalone preamp before any other insert in your tracks and then design the sounds as you normally do with virtual instruments and algo plugins. If compression or EQ is needed, add Amethyst selectively. For instance, instead of EQuing four different tracks that make up a pad, you could buss them together and slap an instance of Amethyst in that group. Not only would you save CPU power, but also you'd give those related tracks a cohesive sound. If you start to see your computer struggling for air after a while, freeze your track groups and free that processing.

What you definitely need is a compressor and an EQ on the mix bus. That's where Amethyst shines for me, although it behaves differently and I need to learn my moves with this beast, just like I'm learning my UA 710 preamp. It's not instant satisfaction but once you find the sweet spot, you get a long-lasting smile on your face. It's replaced my UAD 33609 on the mix bus in a matter of a few hours. One thing I'm learning is that boosting +10 in an Acqua EQ band doesn't make the track shrill and digitally trashy/phasey. However on the mix bus, your moves are to be subtle. 1:1.5 compression ratio, -2 to -3 gain reduction, like that. The mix bus EQ should boost or cut in broad Q moves, no more than +/-2dB.