You actually don't need this in the most recent plugins. Azzimov skins for instance use Setup files. They have everything pre-configured.

The -18 ddfs applies to all nebula stuff, I personally use a simple Kilohertz gain plugin for this just before a Nebula instance.

 

That's the million dollar question that everybody evades to answer everytime it's made. You will never get that answered by a hater because there aren't algo plugins with superior sound quality. They just don't exist. And to prove it, i can A/B any mentioned plugin with a Nebula lib counterpart. See: i'm willing to upload files to prove that. Lets see if someone accepts the challenge

I'm not saying that sound quality is everything and Nebula is superior for that reason. Nebula is far from being a workhorse plugin like Fabfilter or UAD (or even AO!). But it excels on what they are made for: emulating hardware sound. If you're not into that, if you think it's irrelevant for your audience (it is), just skip it. You're not wrong for not using it, your priorities are other; maybe a more eficient person like @Djord Emer will never miss it, nor his audience.

I use because i love how it sounds and i love how it fits with my workflow and my way of staying creative without thinking about which algo plugin i will use to emulate certain behaviour. I have my go-to algo emulations as well, but i only go for them when CPU is an issue and i can't freeze/bounce (a bus, for example).

Yeah, when HW profiling became a thing i was on the first wave and now it's fun to watch the tech evolve. I met some crappy profiling out there BTW. I generally use it with caution, because oversampling can mess everything up and it aliases a lot.

 

This proposed test does not isolate the variable being debated. You’re no longer testing the engine inside Nebula. You’re testing engineering under different constraints. Nobody does an "all nebula mix". Probably not even an All Acustica mix.

If one group is limited to Nebula-only and another group can use anything, stock plugins, Universal Audio, FabFilter, clipper chains, dynamic EQ, etc. then the result tells you nothing about Nebula’s underlying approach. It just tells you how flexible one workflow is versus another. Everyone already knows the answer to that part.

 

Anyone got a Mac setup guide?

 

Smart

 

In fact most Nebula users are combining it with great digital workhorses. It's just pointless and ressource hungry to work 100% Nebula.

 

Plus it depends on the skill of the engineer! A 20 year veteran could probably mix an all Nebula mix better than a 2 year newb using all algo.
It would make more sense for a person to do both mixes, and compare themselves or share with the forum. I actually did that a couple times when I first started using Nebula. I used some stems from https://www.cambridge-mt.com/ms3/mtk/ and tried to make the exact same mix twice. Making sure levels were the same, and same eq moves etc. Used 30 or so plugin instances. The end result were pretty close, but in my blind A/B i choose Nebula every time, and after enough back and forth the extra detail, depth, mohjo whatever became more and more apparent.

Exactly. Nebula is the vibe king, but cannot do what DMG multiplicity does, or fab filter etc. Its great we have so many tools and can do a hybrid approach. Most of my songs ill have half and half nebula / algo, a couple AnalogX, as well as a handful of analog patched in. fun stuff!

 

Amen to that...