Yup, Plugin Doctor doesn't show group delay... Which is a big part of why Hardware sounds different and why most Algo emulations fall flat. Acustica actually samples group delay :P . If it were as simple as THD and EQ curves hardware would be obsolete.

 

Now one question remains and I mean it as a question. Would you rather use five parameters in Baxter or two dozen in EQuilibrium to get this sound?

 

I had to reupload for the second time the zip folder because I accidentally moved
an eq node deleting the unused bands, now is good. I could have used way less bands if I made it in a more rational way
but it was out of scope so I've been lazy. I hope that these comparisons can free up wasted CPU and HDD resources to people that
didn't know that it was possible to recreate those nebula programs, or put it in another way to recreate analog eqs curves, with more efficient (and bug free)tools.
I was writing before your last post (while watching a TV show) but you beat me to it.
Answer 1: I could match the curves with pretty much the same number of bands using equilibrium or other powerful equalizers (as I said I was being lazy and didn't feel the necessity to use less bands because it was out of the scope but it can certainly be done).
Answer 2: I don't care for this because I use algo eqs that give me the choice to design the curves that I
feel appropriate for the job so I don't feel the necessity to emulate nebula programs (or specific hardware equalizers sampled by Nebula or not other than those algo emulation that i like, softube trident being one of those for example)

EDIT: just for the sake of it I uploaded a 5 bands version that is sonically identical to the previous on. Although the phase plot is less accurate (even if inaudible) I'm sure that if choosing the right settings and curves it's possible to match accurately the phase response plot like the already spot on frequency response plot. I don't feel the need to explore this for now given that the minimal phase shifts are already inaudible.

 

Last edited: Jan 19, 2021

I'm curious to know what are the algo eqs that let you design the curves?

 

As he stated, he used DMGAudio EQuilibrium for this.

From their homepage:

• Circuit models of vintage EQs from history, model numbers including: 4000, 3 (4 modes), 110, 550, 88, 32, 250

• Filters include: Coincident, Butterworth, Chebyshev, Bessel, Critical, Legendre, Elliptic, Allpass types

• First-order, second-order, vintage, and tilt shelves

• Classic DMG Bells and notches, with a +/-36dB range, and a Q range from 0.1 to 50

• Classic DMG Shelves which let you move the resonance above or below the curve

• Classic DMG Filters at 6/12/18/24/30/36/42/48 db/octave, sweepable resonance

 

Ok, you have a valid point here.

1kHz Sine tone, 1sec sine burst, DR Meter, GR Scope, Oscilloscope

Maybe. But these are the compressors I have and use the most.
Other than that, it doesn't really matter. What do you think is the "best in class" algotithmic 1176? Softube? Arturia? I mean, with DC8C I can reproduce most of the compression behavior except for the timing variable in all-button mode. But the general sound characteristics? No.

I'll listen in tomorrow.

 

Ok, I thougt it was another because Equilibrium let you choose between many curves but you can't design new one (from what I know but I can be wrong...).
Otherwise I tried this method with another digital eq (matching eqs with PD) and yes I am able to match Acustica curve using algo, but as soon as you have to change settings, you realize that algo don't "move" in a musical way, and you have to change many frequencies where Acustica plugin stay musical.
So that's why I was asking if there was a eq plugin that lets you design the curves, to push the test further more ;)

 

Can't disagree with you on that! Channel strips and mastering EQs is where Nebula/Aqua really shines. The mild pre/tube/transformer saturation and musical EQ curves is the biggest difference from algos IMO. Some algo plug-ins come close but it seems like to get them all the way there, they will have to use as much cpu as the Nebula/Aqua plug-ins anyways.

 

With "designing the curves" I meant parametric equalizing where I can choose frequency/boost or cut/Q.
Other than Equilibrium I use other eqs including stock Ableton/Reaper EQ, TB EQ4, FF ProQ3 , Crave EQ, Waves, PA, Softube Trident and others for different scopes.
70/80% of the time stock eq is good enough.
When you say that algos don't move in a musical way when you change settings I think that you refer to strictly non-analog emulated curves from surgical equalizers like stock eqs etc...
because all Nebula does is sampling hardware units and hardware units have been perfectly modeled (in regard to eq curves) in algo equalizers already many years ago. Analog emulated algos eqs change settings in a musical way the same as hardware.
Maybe you didn't find the right tool for you job or you are just fine with Nebula ones.
At the end of the day is the result that counts.
I prefer to have CPU cycles at my disposal given that primarily I compose my music and mix it as I go on, so more efficient mixing give me more freedom for using synths and creative tools that are sometimes very CPU demanding.
And even if I were only mixing I'd want to rely on bug free tools without worrying of strange CPU spikes, echo noise and other audible artifacts that Nebula can/could introduce (I read that echo noise was fixed months ago) when I was using them.
Nebula developer stated on Gearslutz and in his own forum that he releases buggy software and than in some weeks or months he fixes the bugs because he gives priority to date of release deadline. Definitely not my cup of tea ecosystem.
English is non my native language so I apologize if sometimes I can't use the right words to describe what I want.

 

Just some notes on your position against AA and Nebula tech in general:
- Your bias against AA and Nebula seems partly based on dated experience.
- Your composing/mixing workflow is generally viewed as bad practice. This does not necessarily mean it is bad for you, but it doesn't look good on you for blaming AA and Nebula for not fitting in your personal workflow. To further comment on that: I never experience CPU spikes, echo noise or audible artifacts. And I have plenty of CPU cycles left to run multiple N4 programs in 32-bit / 96K.

 

Ah, you used a low and high bell to match the shelves, and a mid bell to pull that area down, clever. I didn't try this approach.

But, I never had this problems, so far:

 

I have no problem using stock plugins from Reaper (eq, comp, etc.), I use them on every sessions (they are not suited for every situations, but it's another subject.)
And yes, for the test I used a strictly digital eq, tool that I also use in mixing session when I have to be precise/surgical, they are the right tool for the job!
But when it comes to color/music, I prefer Acustica plugins! You reach what you want so easily! And I have tried many things from UAD, TC Electronics and Liquid Mix I still own, to Fab Filter, Slate, etc.
With the regular discount and the coupon, they are great values for the money (I think I buyed some for less than 20€... and often for less than 60€).
But I stay open to experimentation, test and comparison ;)

 

Oh and no problem with CPU spikes and echo here too.

Edit :

 

I thought that you went by ear because I had the impression that settings were not matched as close as possible, noise didn't help.
DMG Trackcomp2 76 rev D model (used in the right way as it's a little more compicated than others) is the first that came to my mind.

 

I mentioned those bugs to describe my experience with Acustica Audio products but in the same post I also clarified that I read they fixed echo noise bug some time ago. i'm not trying to bash anyone here, just to be clear. I had CPU spikes with a reverb program with a powerful PC at that time (dpc optimized etc..), I'm glad that this in not affecting you.
As I said all in all it's the result that counts and if people are happy with Nebula it's all good for me. Why shouldn't be?

 

Ok, I'll be more clear just to make sure that there are not misunderstandings here:
-When I say compose and mix I'm saying that i sculpt my sounds with mixing tools in the process as anyone do and when I finished tracks
I do the proper mixing, (change mixing with tracking if it suits you better) but I was explaining why I prefer to not have my CPU clogged without audible benefits.
-I don't know from since you're using Nebula (2013 for me) but echo noise bug was a well know bug that affected Nebula programs and only core 16 sorted that problem, it seems strange that you never experienced such bug and others, Gearslutz and even AA forum is full of examples on this that you can read but I'm not interested to debate on this since I don't have problems with people happy to use Nebula.
Nebula is a CPU hog and if that suits your workflow good for you! As I said not my cup of tea.
Nebula developer as I said earlier stated that he releases programs with bugs and fix them later, again not my cup of tea but if it's ok for you, good for you.
-Here we are discussing the supposed superior Nebula audio quality, I made a comparison to prove that, in regard to at least eqs with algos you can have the same sound quality.
-I'm not biased, I simply speak for what choices I've made and why, maybe someone can benefit from reading.
Please stop talking personal about things that are not because I'm not blaming anyone and of course it is not because is not fitting my personal workflow.

PS: I apologize for multiple posts, I will multiquote if necessary from now on.

 

Replicating an EQ curve is not proving Nebula EQ's and algo EQ's have the same audio quality.

 

No prob, the site seems to have some hiccups ATM. I had a double post myself for a few seconds and then it was gone.

 

Last edited: Jan 20, 2021

When I LISTEN to something and I can't hear any audible difference between 2 things I consider the 2 have the same sound quality: it's called
blind testing and it's very easy to understand. Matching EQ curves is the method (part of it) to make them undistinguishables, not the goal.
Full mix or drums loop is not relevant: it's the same, I tested it (that is not relevant if full mix or drums loop). Feel free to prove me wrong.

 

Last edited: Jan 21, 2021

Acustica Audio is snake oil.

Any well coded plugin with mid-level oversampling will sound just as good, if not better.

Man, people have been winning awards and producing hits using just stock plugins and ordinary stuff like Waves for ages.

Even real hardware has become obsolete nowadays, and more and more people are mixing exclusively ITB...If some people still use hardware these days, it's mostly because of nostalgia and cognitive bias.

There you go. I said it. Punch me.