What do you think of Titanium compared to the Softube's Tube-Tech collection ?

 

There are tests on YouTube that compared them both with the hardware. Titanium was a clear winner over Softube. AA plugins sound much richer/warmer and more, for lack of a better word, 3D. Algos sound more sterile compared to AA and the hardware; in my humble opinion. But I use both in good harmony. Cut with algos (FabFilter) and boost with AA.

 

This is because of Volterra Kernels. I was producing extensivly with Acustica (Acqua and Nebula) on the last weeks before the holidays and i realized how the sampling process from the 3rd devs and Gianka sounds. It has nothing to do with normal DSP or Hardware. You got a really warm, silk, HiDef, sound from the VVKT sampling process which makes normal algo plugins sound flatter, but on the same edge of the knife it lacks the realism of the HW, sometimes overdoing the fairy dust on the Kernels. On some plugins or libraries, the sampling process is really satisfying for the ears and makes a difference on turning a very digital mix to sound more 'Alive'. But it's VVKT after all. And you don't need a lot of Acusticas on a session for that, so it's a big win. On my taste, Softube Tube-Tech is a state of art plugin of how good it sounds. I don't know WTF they did on that algorithm, but for me sounds perfect for my mixdown and an unreplaceble tool. Depending how you use Titanium, it can be better than Softube's because of the Volterra injection on the source will make it sound more beefy and on steroids. But i like the clean, 3d'sh sound of Softube's, without lots of kernels, mainly because i'm using it on delicate material (braurized SSL 9000J into Gold comp into Tube-Tech PE on melodies). I got the kernels i want from the Gold Comp, so i'm not overdoing it with Titanium.

 

you mean Titanium versus Softube SMC 2B? or Softube CL1B?
cause they didnt capture CL1B for Titanium bundle, its just a single band of SMC 2B (Continuously variable attack and release times are not available in this device)

 

Last edited: Jan 6, 2024

there is a video where somebody compared the curves of the hardware, titanium, and softube, and titanium came almost exact to the hardware, where softube performed very poorly.

 

Found two problems for two plugins today. Please anyone test and verify it on your end. Thanks.

1. FROST [NOT CONFIRMED] [NEW]
- Dynamic EQ doesn't process sound correctly, the meter showing GR is happening when the threshold is lowered, but the sound doesn't change, even when dialed to the extreme. Produce no sound if listened in Delta mode, ie. no processing happening.

2. EMERALD 2 [NOT CONFIRMED] [NEW]
- EMERALD2T & EMERALD2ZL - selecting 440Hz for both Low Mid and High Mid band with Boost/Cut ON will mute the plugin.

 

Last edited: Jan 7, 2024

Reporting Issue: (Win 11, Reaper, 44kHz) Cola2Comp's Mode cannot be changed to the HyperComp mode on both VST2 and VST3 versions when I click on Mode to try and change the comp mode i only get " LST " with no other options but it can be changed to the HYPERCOMP mode on the COLA2COMPZL version. This is crucial! I hope this gets fixed

 

Added to the main thread. By the way can you please confirm the two issues with FROST & EMERALD 2 I mentioned above ? Thanks.

Updated the thread and added this fix for COLA2COMP. Confirmed it works.

 

Last edited: Jan 7, 2024

1) Open file COLA2COMP.XML
2) Find and replace string <ADDONSUBPATH> COLA2T/ </ADDONSUBPATH> with <ADDONSUBPATH> COLA2/ </ADDONSUBPATH>
3) Reload plugin, now you should see proper list

 

Awesome this fix works! I appreciate the quick response!

Unfortunately I can't confirm the issues as I don't have FROST or EMERALD 2 I have mostly everything else though sorry about that!

 

Interesting.
I have bought some AA plugins after i have demoed from R2R so AA should eaze up and i am sure i am not the only one, some will probably buy some plugins they downloaded and liked what they heard.

 

There's nothing magic about the volterra stuff compared to algo. In fact the volterra method is what allows the Acustica IRs to behave in a way that algos can already do. Simply put, the Acustica tech is just many IRs taken from hardware and animated like frames of video. So this allows Acustica to change the IR when the signal gets hotter, for example. This means we can hear what the sampled hardware would sound like when responding to variable signal. Now, with a purely algo method such as softube, the algo can be designed to exhibit the correct colouration for any given signal. So it's more about the design of the algo which will effect its similarity to the hardware, not the fundamental tech itself. In fact algo has more possibility to sound closer to the hardware than volterra, but again it is dependent on the programmer and the choices made to design the algo.

The thing Acustica have is simply taking many snapshots of hardware and making a matrix of these frames. The 'magic', if you like, is that it's a sample of the hardware.. So it will sound like the hardware without much effort or cleverness. We're all familiar with sampling here so we get that. It's easier to make a snare sound realistic by deep sampling a real snare drum than it is to physically model a snare with algo. But if you do it right, the physical model will be more flexible and articulate than the sample. But it would require a great deal of skill. So it is with Acustica vs Algo.

You can sample the amplification stage in a classic moog synth (isolate that part of the electronics and run the IR test signal through it) and then apply that sampled IR to an Arturia emulation.. This will give you a much closer aproximation of the real instrument.
Similarly, it's the preamps that really shine with Acustica because this is what they have done. If you use an Acustica pultec for example, it's that preamp behaviour that gives it the biggest edge over a straight algo when it comes to sounding like a hardware piece. But if you turn off the preamp and remove the colouration, the EQ part becomes much closer to the algo pultecs. But the algo pultecs (at least some of the better ones) are also emulating the preamp and so could sound 'better' than the Acustica, potentially.

 

Last edited: Jan 7, 2024

No response at all from the entire #2 strip. "Comp", "BW1", "BW2", "Dyn EQ" none are working or doing much of anything...

Confirmed both - VST @ 96Khz in reaper.

 

The Softube CL1B wa my go to vox com for years, and I loved it. But the more I dig deeper into these exotic plugins from AA (like Ebony, Tulip, etc.) I find myself loving them more on the material I'm working on. It all depends on taste and the material you working on. Some algo plugins are very well made. My favorite fix EQ at the moment is Scaler Eq. Sonible is a damn good company, etc. AA wins for me because it is the closest we can get to the real thing possible.

 

There is another one, I don't remember the YouTube video, but it tested the Softube CL1B against the Titanium 1B Comp and the hardware. The Titanium comp was closer to the hardware than the Softube one. But again, we're splitting hairs at the moment. Both plugins are very well made

 

Exactly, that one.

 

Yesterday, when testing Water (Windows, FL Studio 21), I had a bug where the left mid band would deactivate and couldn't be reactivated, pretty much like that fixed bug with the Tulip preamps. I haven''t been able to replicate it, though.

 

Works for me in Studio One. Thanks for the fix

 

Some of the AA plugins show in my DAW with a T at the end and some don't. Could it be that the ones with a T at the end are the trials and the ones who don't have a T at the end are the full version? Just a thought..I know this has been discussed earlier, but the outcome was: all are trials.

 

yes they use the same method for authorization, Acustica's Aquarius but never heard one so that's why I've asked, they don't make any sales it seems