To settle the question (hopefully) once and for all, where the sonic difference between Nebula and and algo plugins lies, here is a comparison!

The input of each plug-in was levelled at 0VU (-18dB).
The Compressor types were each calibrated in groups of two according to GR, DR, Peak.
The rendered files were matched to the same LUFS level.

Each type of compressor differs in the amount of GR. I don't see the point in matching an SSL G bus with a Dbx160 in the GR.

Here is the clean file without processing:

• Without Processing

1176 with ALL Buttons, 0.02ms ATT, 50ms REL:

• IK TR5 1176
• N4 TP 1176

160 with 4/1, hard knee, no SCF:

• Waves Dbx160
• N4 TP Dbx160

SSL Bus with 4/1, 30ms ATT, 100ms REL, 150hz SCF:

• IK TR5 SSL Bus
• N4 TP SSL Bus

Just to be clear: I like using all of these plugins. The point here is not whether one plugin is better than the other, but to show the general sonic differences between DynConv and Algo.
To my ears, the Algo plugins tend to distort much faster than Nebula plugin at the same GR. At the same DR, the Nebula plugins always sound more dynamic, more alive, less 2D.

 

Last edited: Jan 19, 2021

Not to mention there is countless of third party libarys ported for Nebula alot of those sounds better than the bundled library in fact there isn't so much discussion about the bundled Library from Nebula users on internet forums not even on Acousticas own forum it is mostly what third party lib they like.

 

I think your question is flawed. It's not about whether one is better or not, it's about which suits it's purpose in a track. For the past two months I've been working on a wide variety of material and sometimes an AA compressor is perfect for vocals, but on another track it just doesn't work. So what you use is source dependant and contextual. A microscopic examination of a beat won't aid in building a song.

 

Agree 100%. But that's not what this comparison is about. It's about where the general sonic differences are between these two technologies.

 

There are always going to be sonic differences. Even comparing algo against algo you'll get audible and measurable differences. I am glad I have the two technologies available when mixing. But these choices need to be made 'when mixing'.
Nonetheless, it is good of you to post these comparisons.

 

Nebula is sampling. They should have a sound almost identical to the hardware at some point.
Algorithms generate mathematical results through a series of complex modeling of circuit networks.
There are a lot of algorithmic plugins with incredible sound, and developers know how these hardware modeling should behave. And some algorithm plugins are simply garbage. Developers have no idea why engineers use these hardware to create legendary records. Nebula avoids these problems because it is a sampling tool and it does not consider specific circuit models.

But Nebula's compressor is difficult to work like hardware, but we have seen Acustica Audio is working hard to solve the problem.

 

The Acqua El Rey Compressor is simple and delivers superb results on the right source material.

 

Given my experience thus far:
Until you can use multiple Nebula plugins across many tracks in a large session, In a word...No.
Until you can dial in frequencies quickly & accurately...No.
Until they get rid off the resource hungry GUIs...No.

Some of the best emulations are Lindell from Plugin Alliance. Then there are the SSL Native & Offerings from Softube.

Then you factor in those from UAD, Antelope & Apogee which run on a separate DSP engine saving resources for the main host computer. This allows laptops to process complex signal chains that otherwise would require a well equipped desktop.

With the recent release of the Antelope Audio Zen Go Synergy Core, entry level USB-C and TB3 audio interfaces with DSP just became competitive.

 

Last edited: Jan 20, 2021

Magenta 5 has much artifacts when GR up to 5dB
But when GR is lower than 3dB, it is a beast.

 

Gainstation is a beast on the drum bus. Use carefully because it has a nasty bite when pushed.
Have to agree about PA Lindell plugins. Superb.

 

Last edited by a moderator: Jan 19, 2021

1176 - i like the IK, the nebula seems too straight ?
dbx160 - the Waves ones is smoother define "over-easy" as it should (even on hard setting)
SSL - I think the release times aren't equal (I could be wrong, maybe it is the same settings, or auto but different internally), the compressions aren't equal, so don't want to choose.

I don't have anything against AA plugins, never own or use them, but damn, from this comparison definitely not worth that 7GB IMO. One more thing, for me personally, how I compare "which compressor is better" is by doing it in context with the whole tracks, like how people usually doing the Pre-amps or Tape Machines comparison. The "analog" effect is described as adding "depth" and 3D effect, you can't tell depth with one track I guess. Plus you have to consider the possibility of the compressor accentuating the reverb and make the instrument sound appear farther away (a little, but you get the point) which is also depth. On single track, the difference is too little.

anyway, to clarify, this is all my opinion. Happy to hear yours.

Did a test last night, I can only hear up to 16-17kHz. so, I could be wrong.

Edited : so it is not auto on SSL, okay. changed the "knee compressor" (my bad, it's for the distressor) to "over-easy" lol, my bad.

 

Last edited: Jan 19, 2021

Once more some on the net conducts a flawed test and concludes he knows better than people using and testing stuff in pro music that people buy and is heard by millions on TV sometimes too...

A. You picked some really shitty algo plugs there cowboy. Your flaw number 1 is to think you could even compare in this way when all you are doing is comparing some shit plugs by waves against some inherently flawed, sonically, plugs from accustica. You need to do a FULL MIX using a variety of the best algo plugs vs a variety of aa/nebula.. and you need to do a few mixes of diff material this way to form any real conclusion.

B. No doubt you’re still one of those guys running their sessions at 44.1k instead of 88.2k (Minimum but sweetspot) or 96k(max) then crying about how shit already SHIT algo plugs that do sound harsh anyway (most stuff from waves..and ik sound like fake toys on all but their most recent stuff like ik tape) then vs nebula which doesn’t gain the same help by running at higher rates... even with oversampling on it’s not the same as how GREAT algo plugs sound and react at 88.2k with or without oversampling. Once you run at 88 and put some oversampling on or use well coded algo plugs, you’re now on the BARE MINIMUM LEVEL PLAYING FIELD WITH NEBULA which will then show you exactly where nebula fails... not just in usabilty but in sound. No serious itb mixer could or would ever use much nebula cos the workflow would kill productivity...if the sound was even worth it would be one thing but use softube, pa, fuse etc algo plugs at 88.2k not shit stuff like waves, do a full mix and note how the algo mix is..if you know what you’re doing and use saturation and multiple points of energy building in your mix, not just some simple linear hack mix, how the algo mix sounds great , open and airy and the nebula mix sounds fake, plastic and sometimes nasal... the nebula build up is terrible. It’s a novelty ok for one or two channels max, but why? It’s no better... it’s placebo. In fact its worse in many ways sonically and dynamically, esp comoressors and pres... eqs almost anything can do these days.

C. The fact that millions of amazing sounding and pro mixes done entirely itb are out there with zero nebula on PROVES already it’s not nebula making the result but a good mixer who knows his tools. And MOST GOOD MIXERS avoid nebula for many good reasons and still managed to produce amazing stuff.

i wish people would finally let this nebula scam die, algo has moved on and cpus are much faster than when nebula tried to fix flaws in other plugs...ironically it is now nebula that is held back by and stuck firmly in the past but its developers are milking that cash cow for all its worth and won’t admit to actual science now cos they got preachers on ever forum infecting every damn new plugin discussion with “not bad but nebula is better” BS!! they are like cultists who can’t actually hear full mixes done with great algo vs nebula and stick only with AA’s bs hype.

makes me wanna puke

 

Last edited by a moderator: Jan 19, 2021

Is Mercedes better than BMW?

 

If you play any sport I bet you get red carded by the referee a lot.

 

Acustica vs Plugin Alliance?

 

I just tried and can't confirm. Used it on drums, bass, even Classical music with at least 14dB GR, all five compressors for 'normal', stereo and channel strip, no artifacts audible.

 

Good introduction to a factual discussion

this is exactly how i earn my money

I like these plugins. If you want to add more representatives for comparison, you are free to do so. All necessary information about processing and matching can be found in the OP and the dynamic information of the files.

Inherently defective? You must explain this in more detail.

I don't need to do anything, my friend! Aside: This is a direct comparison of 2 representatives of the same compressor type on a suitable full range signal: drum bus! To get a similarly comparable result in a mix, the entire mix would have to be implemented with an 1176 or a 160, for example. Not target-oriented nonsense.

All files were processed in 96K, then levelmatched in a separate session and exported in 44.1K.

No one here (except you) is crying because the compared algos sound harsh. A (harsh) IK 1176 on bass can be great, while an arturia 1176 (which pushes low mids) is more suited for too harsh drum overheads. But all algorithmic 1176s have one thing in common: they distort excessively even at moderate GR. Even my old Urei revC can handle way more GR with less distortion.

it is measurable

maybe you are just using the wrong dsp settings

name me an algorithmic eq that can decently emulate the sound of a passive filter circuit.

correct

 

I appreciate your effort but to me there are several flaws in your test:
-First one is that the samples provided contain way too much noise so it's very difficult to judge sonic differences.
-Second is that how do you know that you are really applying the same gain reduction and compressor settings? Same parameters on the GUI is not equal to really have same parameters and gain reduction going on.
-Third one is that the algos comps that you used for the comparison are (IMO) not the best in class for that specific compressors.
-Your conclusion about Nebula more "dynamic" (so less compression or at least different settings?), more "alive" and "less 2D" are subjective (although legitimate) words to describe what you hear and unfortunately don't mean nothing in this context since you didn't really match gain reduction and compressors parameters so you are comparing different things.

Here are 2 samples of a simple Linn Drum loop processed using trial version of AA Ultramarine 4 EQ with 45 hz 10 dB boost and 10.something dB boost at 10 khz matched by DMG Audio Equilibrium. Integrated LUFS and Short Term LUFS carefully matched at -18.5 dB. Can you guess which is which?
If anyone have any question about the comparison feel free to ask.

I can't discern which of the 2 is "different kind of EQs, tracks come to life, they push energy in a different way, unexpected, non linear, a bit chaotic, like the real gear".
No fairy dust or magical mojo in Acustica Audio EQs. Other and more extreme settings=same result. I could do the same for a well known plate reverb from them that sounds the same as a static IR captured from the Nebula program but for now I don't think it's really worth my time since I already came to the same conclusions with every other bit of AA products, compressors included. They are not worth the hassle and they do not provide better sound quality
Dynamic convolution is a great concept in theory, but the many disadvantages (at least in the way implemented by Acustica Audio) and the progress of algorithmic vsts make it an obvious bad choice for my workflow and sonic goals.

 

I would say that the AA stuff is much better at recreating analog equipment than most algos, but much of what I (and probably most people) use when mixing ITB is the type of plug-ins that is only possible in the digital realm. Sure, it's nice to have very accurate replicas of insanely expensive vintage gear like Pultec's, Fairchild etc. stuff I most likely will never be able to buy, but I just don't like the workflow of having to bounce tracks all the time just because my pc can't handle large projects with many instances of AA plug-ins running. The difference from using algo plug-ins is just not big enough imo. I do use some Aqua EQ's often when mastering though, which works really good!

 

I love nebula. I bought it and it is the best 'impulse' or capture based thing out there.
I would be more happy, if licensing and copy protection would be a little easier for costumers.
At this point I would use the release if there were any.
But it is CPU hungry. You cant have hundred track each with compression and eq in nebula (and add
some reverbs in nebula on top).
But I'm not into 'this and that sounds awesome' when it comes to tools like eq or compression.
A 100 track session can perfectly done with stock compression and eq. wouldn make much difference.
It's different on mastering stage.
I.e. a decent tape simultion on the master... that does make a difference.