Hi, I just wanted to ask some of you, if you know of course, is mastering and mixing better with Nebula 3 plug ins or with Waves Complete Bundle (Mercury and all other) plug ins? Also, I read about Nebula 3 being a very popular plug in, so what do you think about it? Is Nebula 3 really sounding as good as Waves, or is it better 'cause I've been viewing some of the add-ons for Nebula 3, like Saturation and Tape plug in pack has about 400MB packed, or some other are much larger then the Waves Complete Bundle itself (1.2 GB). Please answer me, 'cause I haven't been using Nebula 3 (Waves I use) and now I am in the making my mastering sound good faze. Thanks a lot!

 

Exactly! I feel like people see someone talking about Nebula and they think it's going to be this magic bullet that's going to get you a hit. Like anything you have to try it for yourself and see if it fits your workflow and the sound you imagine. I like it but if that makes you run out and want to try it then perhaps you need to take a look at that. And as far as I know the "making your track sound good phase" is the definition of mastering.

 

You can make raw tape sound amazing if done right. Mastering and good are subjective to the listener. this 'lofi' music would be the opposite of mastering (to some extent) but people like it and think its good. And old tape recordings with hiss and stuff, people still love and listen to.

My mastering tools will vary from yours and two professionals will not master a single track the same way. Two different ears, two different definitions of 'good mastering'.

Not very helpful, but a blunt reality to music/audio.

(i use waves and izotope, and old rackmount CRAP (near ancient lexicon reverbs, macbeth mods, dbx, 12ax7 shit, old tascam mfp01 modded, old tubed sats (old ass russian tubes)) [i have no nebula 3 option {OSX}])

 

Trust me when I tell you that it does not matter, and let me go even further and tell you that I have mastered a lot of my songs using stock plugins *yes*

Just choose whatever you are comfortable with and stick with it, because you will not be able to clearly tell the difference in "quality" between the plugins because it's just so subjective. Something can sound good one day and sound not so good the next, depending on your mood, your ears, what you ate that day, what music you listened to that day etc etc etc…So, in order to get better at mastering, you need to learn the plugins you use inside out, it doesn't matter which ones they are, just know the ones you use inside out and have a plan when you want to start mastering a song. Listen to it from beginning to end and take notes. That's a lot more important than the actual plugins. That being said, waves and izotope are more than enough for any mastering project. I have personally never tried nebula and probably never will, because I already know the tools I use and know that they work.

 

I use a combination of both in m mixdowns and mastering. Compressors are still not great on Nebula so using something like CLA76 and then putting Henry Olonga's 1176 Mojo in there with it gives you the best of both worlds. All the dynamics and control of the Waves algo emulation and the added sound from Nebula. Nebula certainly does make things sound more like my old analog desk and reel to reel, however it is quite a learning curve and you have to change your workflow somewhat to cater for its idiosyncrasies.
Most of all though, try it out for yourself. No amount of people saying how amazing Nebula is or how bad it is will be a substitute for you trying it yourself. And don't listen to people saying it's a magic trick that makes everything sound magically great. It isn't. It can sound terrible if you don't know what you are doing with it in the same way a stock algo plug-in can sound great if you know what you are doing.

 

If you can afford both, a combination of the two is best. My limited experience with Nebula 3 tells me it is best suited for coloration and saturation type fx, though there are others who swear by its reverbs and/or eqs. It's really up to you, your ears and the power of your cpu.

 

Nebula is suited for mixing and not mastering. It has emulations of old analog gear. I have to warn you that it's very CPU hungry, so it can bring your system to its knees if used on every track.
Waves on the other hand, it has both analog emulations and mastering plugins, such as limiters and multiband compressors. I'm a little against the Waves because their bundles are so huge, imagine you install a bundle and it has tens or hundreds of plugins and when you start your DAW, there is so much choice that you don't know which plugin to use. I think I've read this sentence on many forums and threads, that having a limited number of tools allows creativity.
This is why I prefer to choose a plugin from a company, another plugin from another company, I don't like dozens of plugins in a bundle since I know I am not going to use them all and they will just distract me. I haven't tried to master any of my songs (I can raise the levels in mixing), and I think that no matter which plugin you have, it may be the top mastering digital plugin, if you don't have the top Digital to Analog converters and studio monitors, you will distort the crap out of the song with your ITB self mastering without even hearing it.

 

I think that's the definition of mixing, not mastering.

 

I meant commercially good.

 

It never ceases to amaze me how so many people want to know what the "best" this or "best" that is. But instead of trusting their own ears, they would rather believe the opinions of complete strangers over the internet.

First of all, most producers would agree that you should never master your own work. And second, if you can't decide for yourself which plugins are best suited to obtain the results you want, then you shouldn't be mastering at all.

It's unfortunate how simple-minded some people could be. Just because Nebula has been on the front page for the last few days some may automatically believe it must be this gift from God that will magically make all of their music sound better. But if your work is poorly thought out and boring, there isn't a plugin in the world that can help you.

 

I love Nebula stuff, but i don't mix & master exclusively only with Nebula, i just mix the algo plugins with Nebula instances, getting the best of both worlds. The best use of Nebula IMO is to use it on the MAIN tracks, such as bass, kickdrum, vocals, main lead melody, mixbuss, etc combined with some algo plugs.
I'm going to point out some Nebula instances i use when i mix & master (but i won't specify the algo plugs too, because i never have a fixed choice, just depends on the sound material)

- on bass tracks i use Nebula's AlexB MPEQ, (which is a Moog MKPE 3band EQ) which adds a vibe sizzle character that i really can't get with algo plugins and i just really crave for this flavour on basses, other alternative would be the STN MCI Heritage EQ (which is a dirty MCI eq unit with lots of character).

- on vocals, at the beginning of the chain if the vocal is pretty harsh, i would add a sampled EMI/Chandler/REDD47 preamp, for eqing i use AlexB ModernWhiteEQ (Neve Portico RND 5033 EQ unit) combined with W295B(Siemens EQ, great for airy highs) and W492EQ (Neumann EQ). For compressors, i use AlexB MWD (Neve Portico RND 5043), AlexB Fenix (Thermionic Phoenix), OTD (CL1B), DME 1968 (Drawmer 1968) etc. but ONLY using it subtly, in SMALL doses, complementing themselves with the algo plugs.

- on a kickdrum i would use the MLC IL2 (SSL9000K driven input), PooltecEQ (Pultec EQP-1A), DME 1968(which is good on drumbuses too), MPEQ too, etc.

- on a main melody synth lead i would add Oberheim line amp, a Studer 15IPS to make it less harsh(if it's really sounds overly harsh), AlexB C2A (LA2A) compressor + STN LApreA (Amplifier/transformer stage), G.A. Kultcomp (Kultube 2049), HPF & LPF from AlexB (Korg MS-20).

- on mixbuss for mastering purpose i use STN Nag Tape 30IPS (Nagra T-Audio) which i find it sweet and retains the bass frequencies more compared to 30IPS R2R Studer. Other instances would be Mammoth EQ (Manley Massive Passive) and AlexB BlackMasterEQ(Api 5500 unit, which i mentioned in other topics that adds overall punch to low-end freqs of the mixbus that i couldn't get with algo plugs). P.S. if you don't have Mammoth EQ, then you can combine Native Instruments Passive EQ with Henry Olonga MPassive Mojo as a alternative.

Nebula is a "gift" only when you know how to use it, because you can fail faster using Nebula than using algo plugs if you really have no experience with it. And being "on the front page" has nothing to do with this crave from everybody, because Nebula isn't that new . Maybe they craving for "analog" word, not for Nebula's name. (and "analog" means "better" for most of the human subjects )

 

Dammm...if you need this much processing your original signal must be pretty bad! surely it would be better to get the original signal/sound as good as possible rather than having to process it to death in this way?

why do people think that you get this nice natural analog sound by processing it with loads of different digital plug-ins?

bizarre!!!

 

Did you read all my words carefully? I pointed out my choices depending the track sources, but that doesn't mean i would use them all at once. I even mentioned the fact that i only use them regarding the sounds sources. I also use Algo plugs at the start of the chain, because for examples are good for cleaning/surgical tweaking so you can get that sound material right before using "analog impulses", because you can use algo everywhere without choking your CPU. For example a HPF for the tracks that doesn't require low-end frequencies, why should i use i.e. Nebula's SSL9000K HPF impulses when i can use a simple and light algo eq?

I also mentioned the fact that i use all the things mentioned in that post ONLY IN SMALL DOSES, SUBTLY! Damn...
Also it's not a bad thing to use more than one compressor complementing themselves, check for example sound engineering ebooks like "The sistematic mixing guide", even the guy who wrote it mentioned that is good for example to use LA2A in conjunction with 1176, things that i was already doing before reading it so it was like a confirmation to my workflow. The IMPORTANT thing in all of these is to not overdo it. If you can't handle so much choices that doesn't mean that nobody can't.

Also if you hear good enough your tracks, sometimes you won't need a "enhancing" tool at all, because there are instrument libraries that are already processed fully/partially/or at all. If you know how to listen, then you already predict how much do you need to do to that track.

P.S.: All my explanations are based on the commercial side of music, which is loud and processed. Who wants to make their music in a naturally analog-only way just for it's own taste, churches or jazz, then i don't have no objection, it's just a matter of purpose. Even the "analog" engineers mix their analog tools with digital tools these days, so it's not a bad thing at all.

 

A good song will always sound "good".
A turd will always sound like a turd even when polished by the best mastering engineers.

 

Listen to some gabber (hardtunes.com) and you will never see mastering the same again. Keep in mind that this is music that fills arenas.

There is no better method to mastering and it doesn't matter what you use, as long as you capture the desired sound you want to hear once the music has been pressed (or rendered these days).

Nebula is another great tool, just like Waves. People may argue that an electric screwdriver is better than a regular one, but sometimes, it just can't fit in the right place, or is limited in angle, etc.

You get my drift.

Don't let the tyranny of choice slow down your creative process.

Good luck!

 

Insert "bitwig" instead of nebula.

 

Both manufacturers plugins have a place when used with discretion and should not be used as a quick fix for a shite mix. In the real world analog can represent fat, warm cosy and clear, in the digital emulation realm it can often show up as just "Dull"! So tread lightly on your mix when using both.

 

I had Nebula installed, with over 35gigs of third party content. I never used it, in part because i didn't know how to properly work with Nebula.
All that kernel stuff and so on got me a bit scared.
But most importantly whenever i tried it i was disapointed. I wasn't sure it did what i wanted and if i was using it correctly.

Now there is a CUDA\ server version. I saw al those great third party libraries with the Echoplex, Reverbs and Tape thingies.
And i started wondering, should i get it again. I luv all that new stuff. I'm greedy like that.

But then i realised, i got exactly what i want with the plugs i already have.
Now i'm all for trying new stuff. But why would i go and get all that Nebula stuff.
It's not that my old stuff is better, but it is exactly what i want.
I'm sure Nebula is great. As i am sure that there are other plugs out there that are great as well.
But why bother if i already have everything i need to get the sound that i want.

Personally i use old Waves plugs (C4 comp.), cause to my ears their emulations of popular hardware (CLA stuff) sound like shit compared to the real thing. But i know some people who swear by it.

 

well said...thats wisdom right there

 

As i said in earlier posts, you can fail faster with Nebula than using algo plugins, because Nebula is everything but intuitive.
You will always do better work squeezing some plugins to their max than using Nebula to it's quarter.

There's alot of things you need to take in consideration while you're using Nebula, like: Why did you loaded that instance? Did you felt that track lacking something that Nebula would be able to add? Did that track really needs plenty processing? Subtle processing? Or at all? (because some of the VST Instruments comes already processed, fully/partially or at all, is up to you to find out how much that particular track needs to be processed additionally before even loading a plugin instance, also did you respected the gain stage which the developer used in the sampling process of that unit?

There's alot of unintuitive aspects that Nebula has, that's why there's such a low prices for the 3rd party Nebula programs, because you already need a powerful computer to run it but also to spend some time to make it from unintuitive to intuitive and adapting it to your workflow.

I work with Nebula because i used to work in a primary studio before, for labeled artists and etc. earning enough experience with hardware units.

Yes, a good signal chain takes you just to a certain level, but doesn't make all the work for you, because different songs needs different tweaking and a signal chain no matter how high-end is, it won't sound universally good for absolutely everything you send through it, that's why the mixing tools exist, so you can adapt that particular track to the whole context of the song. Mixing processing is more like you would sculpt the sound instead of destroying it (as long as you're doing it right) *yes*