The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Gear for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
Is Acustica Audio...
Old 6th September 2018
  #1
Gear Maniac
 
ilalin's Avatar
Is Acustica Audio...

...really worth the hassle regarding CPU issues, authorizations, problems with latency?

Does anybody who has been dealing with these guys has seen an improvement with these issues during the years?

To me it seems like typical Italian business. Beautiful on the outside and problems after problems on the inside.
Old 6th September 2018
  #2
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ilalin View Post
...really worth the hassle regarding CPU issues, authorizations, problems with latency?

Does anybody who has been dealing with these guys has seen an improvement with these issues during the years?

To me it seems like typical Italian business. Beautiful on the outside and problems after problems on the inside.
CPU issues = depends on your system. I don't think Acquas are getting less CPU intensive, but CPUs are getting more powerful. do you have a new PC/Mac or an old one? If you have a good computer (i7 fifth generation or newer) will not be of much hassle. Oh, if you use Reaper, go for it. Apparently Acustica's plugins runs easily on Reaper.

Authorization = yeah, got a lot better. they have an app called Aquarius that does the authorization with one click.

Latency = they have a ZL (zero latency) version of each plugin. It is more CPU intensive.

All in all, I tend not to use lots of Acquas, because in a big session they can slow me down. And I tend to use the freeze function on my DAW more than with others plugins.

So, in my opinion, it has it's quirks, but I can deal with them.

PS: The real problems to me is a pretty bad support, and the releases are normally buggy. I recommend waiting at least 2 weeks after they release a product to really test it. The first week can give you a headache.
Old 6th September 2018
  #3
Gear Maniac
 
ilalin's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by SameOh View Post
CPU issues = depends on your system. I don't think Acquas are getting less CPU intensive, but CPUs are getting more powerful. do you have a new PC/Mac or an old one? If you have a good computer (i7 fifth generation or newer) will not be of much hassle. Oh, if you use Reaper, go for it. Apparently Acustica's plugins runs easily on Reaper.

Authorization = yeah, got a lot better. they have an app called Aquarius that does the authorization with one click.

Latency = they have a ZL (zero latency) version of each plugin. It is more CPU intensive.

All in all, I tend not to use lots of Acquas, because in a big session they can slow me down. And I tend to use the freeze function on my DAW more than with others plugins.

So, in my opinion, it has it's quirks, but I can deal with them.

PS: The real problems to me is a pretty bad support, and the releases are normally buggy. I recommend waiting at least 2 weeks after they release a product to really test it. The first week can give you a headache.
Thank You!

what about the sound?
is it really that much closer to hardware than analog emu's of the developers that do not use convolution?
Old 6th September 2018
  #4
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ilalin View Post
Thank You!

what about the sound?
is it really that much closer to hardware than analog emu's of the developers that do not use convolution?
No. Sometimes I prefer them over algo emulations of the same hardware. But this is not always true. And it's not a huge difference to me. We are talking about subtle differences here.

The eqs are normally great. You can't go much wrong there. The comps are more hit or miss. The newer ones are better.

One thing that I like is that each Acqua has a different color. They feel like different devices the minute you start playing with them.

By the way, another problem is that they have a lag every time you move a knob. They are getting a lot better and doesn't bother me at all today. Sometimes I don't even notice it. But some people get anoyed by that.
Old 6th September 2018
  #5
Lives for gear
 

Acquas are indeed growing more cpu efficient. This is testable, proven.

Mileage may vary, but improving indisputabley.

I prefer the sound probably 99/100.

The workflow is justified 70/100.

They can only do so many functions though. I use many of the “proudly digital” offerings: TDR, Airwindows, Gullfoss, Zynaptic, etc...

But I use zero “modeled” algos... with the exception being distortion units. True Iron, Contemporary Color, decapitator are all still superior in terms of quality of sound times quality of workflow compared to the beautiful but hungry AA Crimson.

All things stated are my opinion... with the exception of the measurable CPU gains.
Old 6th September 2018
  #6
Gear Nut
 
crackmandu's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by ilalin View Post
...really worth the hassle regarding CPU issues, authorizations, problems with latency?

Does anybody who has been dealing with these guys has seen an improvement with these issues during the years?

To me it seems like typical Italian business. Beautiful on the outside and problems after problems on the inside.
After demoing Ivory for months and months and months (I don't know how, but it gave me a bunch of demos), I pulled the trigger and bought it. I can't speak to the other plugs, and i'll probably avoid them. But that EQ is fantastic, especially on the mix buss. It's buggy. It's a hog. But it's worth it.

...so far.
Old 6th September 2018
  #7
Gear Maniac
 
Fuseburn's Avatar
 

All in all Nebula 3 Pro is pretty stable in REAPER.

It can sometimes still mess up things if you are switching samplerate upon loading a new project. REAPER will correctly switch to the new samplerate, but all Nebula instances will load programs in the previous samplerate. When going from 44.1 to 96k that means the programs are downsampled to 44.1k. EQ programs are shifted upwards in frequency and sounding off.
Switch Samplerate in an empty project, then open up the new project.
Nebula will lose its authorization randomly. Happens every 1-2 years.

If you keep these two things in mind it's pretty usable. I'm not considering moving to Nebula 4, basically because it took almost ten years to reach this level of stability.

I'm using Pink 1 and 2 and they both have the terrible behavior of randomly displaying "please authorize this product". Whenever the plugin has reached this state it will behave like a demo version, and that means that it will not save its settings, and even worse, if you save your project while a plugin is in that state, it will overwrite the previous settings with zero. So next time you open up the project all the settings are gone even if the plugin shows up correctly authorized. This only happens on bigger projects which fill up several Gigabytes of RAM. And also only on instances which are loaded when the ram is already filled to a certain amount. So your chances are good that you will never encounter this on your first 40 tracks or so. But it's a trap and the only thing which can restore these settings is having a backup file of your project.
This issue has been addressed in an update but it's not fixed. I would assume that most beta testers are not working on huge projects and therefore rarely encounter this.

So always make sure that all your pink instances are showing up correctly authorized.

I have no further experience with other acqua plugins but I would not recommend using them unless you are a Computer nerd which I am admittedly ;-)
Old 6th September 2018
  #8
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ilalin View Post
...really worth the hassle regarding CPU issues, authorizations, problems with latency?

Does anybody who has been dealing with these guys has seen an improvement with these issues during the years?

To me it seems like typical Italian business. Beautiful on the outside and problems after problems on the inside.
Slow day at work today, so here is a long rant:

I agree and it is a sensitive issue here at GS because
there is a very fanatic user base that believes
that AA plugins have the best sound and everything else sounds “plastic”
or whatever.

i have many aquas and even more nebula libraries. I have enjoyed using them
but in recent years I find myself almost never using them other than testing for the heck of it.

As you correctly say AA products are expensive,
Cpu and ram hogs, very poorly supported and buggy as hell.
There have been improvements but the user experience
end-to-end is to this day is much worse compared to other major companies.

Regarding quality of sound: despite the mythology that AA sounds great
and everything else does not, it greatly depends on the type of AA effect
compared to alternatives.

Eqs: up until fairly recently there was a distinct advantage in
AA eqs over competing products. AA eqs were usually more euphonic
than algos and there was little to justify the algos other than easier to use and
frequently cheaper. With the advent of plugins
Like isotope neutron, fabfilter pro-q and pro-mb, dmg equilibrium, crave dsp,
Gulfoss/31/intensity etc, however I believe that nowadays
one can get great results sonically, faster and with vastly
extended functionality with pure digital/algorithmic plugins
(like inter band sidechains, cross-track frequency
collision detection, frequency spectrum referencing, automatic resonances detection
and auto correction, sound clarity, smooth blending of mid/side per band etc, etc.)

Compressors: it was never a competition really with AA traditionally lagging behind
algos big time. Recently AA had some distinct progress with newer (core 12)
compressors however the algorithmic plugins in the last year
or so have been in a completely different (better) league. Compressors
Like softube/Weiss dsm, dynone, ff pro-mb, uad distressor are beyond the dreams of what AA compressors can do imo.

Reverbs: this is harder to compare (quite subjective and too many degrees
of freedom in comparing). I am of the impression
that the relab and uad lexicons, the flux verb 3 and spat, the uad
plates and ocean drive, the seventh heaven pro (Bricasti IR) as well as sound-design oriented verbs like
blackhole, micron etc are presently more powerful and diverse than AA verbs.

Other effects: AA still has problems with time-varying distortion and the main
players are non-convolution products like vsm, ff Saturn, soundtoys, uad fatso, spectre, etc.

All in all, and despite these problems, what AA is doing is important for preserving the core sound and making widely available
some rare and expensive hardware fx units that will
eventually disappear (line most old analog synths did).

As appealing as these products are, however, they do not look to me
either to be very usable or the most effective/better sounding
tools for modern production.
Old 6th September 2018
  #9
Gear Maniac
 

Soundwise you can’t fault the latest Acustica eq’s . I run Gold 2 , Magenta Pink ebony ruby and cream. I got into them once I built a 7960x hackintosh on a big ssd with 32gig of ram which cost roughly 4K otherwise on a normal 2012 macpro it wasn’t usable.
Having also a few hardware units such as the api, Neve 1073 and massive passive the eq’s are just top notch.
I am not persuaded about the comps so far. They react weirdly in the attack and don’t feel like the analog hw. I own a hw slam a varimu a pair of 2254s and a Fairchild 670 and I am not getting the same feel.
I enjoyed the emt and the delays, those are useful.
I run these plug ins at 1024 samples at 48k so obviously only when mixing.
Acustica has come a long way with their installer and their newest plug ins.
Old 7th September 2018
  #10
Lives for gear
 
Jerrick's Avatar
 

Clean harmonics and curves I can get from my other plugins just fine. So my time with Aqua and Nebula is basically over. Was never sold on their compressors or distortions, and the only thing still standing for me with their process is the reverbs. Those are a nice option to have.

The more I look into the process and how their plugins react, the more I want to stay away from them.

Maybe a few years from now i'll get the bug and want to emulate certain pieces and bust out all the presets I made with Patchwork. But until then, NAH.
Old 7th September 2018
  #11
Lives for gear
 
brockorama's Avatar
 

Depends what I am doing.

I don't use them much in any new style. RnB...Pop...DrumBass EDM

Maybe just Diamond on the master or Azure with Flucti Mew or TimP L-bus comps.

I use them a lot more on traditional sounding music ACUS Gtr... Bass...EGtr...SD3.....Pianos...Vocals...Strings...Brass...percussion
Old 7th September 2018
  #12
Deleted e71ab78
Guest
It depends what your using, your set up and how much your digging the sound.

The new n4 free player has some plugins that are not very cpu demanding like mantis, Tokyo EQ and the new SoundDrops EQ, they are lighter than many algorithmic plugins I've tried, and ofc there are many plugins that are lighter still.

So essentially, try them yourself and see what works and if it's worth it to you.

I haven't dived into full N4 land and doubt I will, I think this N4 Player with the 3rd party libraries is really interesting though and they sound great.

An anomaly in a way, but Mantis uses about 2% CPU on my i5 laptop, so there is no cpu issues or hassle whatsoever. The new eq was hitting around 11% with all bands and pre engaged, again, no issues.

One instance of Gold2 gave me crackles tho, so it's really a case by case deal.
Old 7th September 2018
  #13
Lives for gear
 
moon_unit's Avatar
 

My experiences with Acustica have been mostly excellent. They really are a cut above in terms of hardware emulations to my ears. Yes, they do tend to be taxing on the CPU so it's likely you'll need to change your workflow in some way if you plan on using lots of instances.

And as for customer service, did I mention they sound good?

But as with everything else .... all of this is subjective, so try them out and judge for yourself.
Old 7th September 2018
  #14
Gear Maniac
 

I must say I now first finish a song without touching them to keep the creative juices flowing, but for mixing and mastering there’s nothing out there that gives that ‘sounds like a record should sound’ itb as Acqua and Nebula.
Old 7th September 2018
  #15
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mplay View Post
I must say I now first finish a song without touching them to keep the creative juices flowing, but for mixing and mastering there’s nothing out there that gives that ‘sounds like a record should sound’ itb as Acqua and Nebula.
Nope! commercial including ligh profile and award winning records
done itb are 99.99% NOT done with aqua and nebula
and the mixing and mastering engineeres working itb consistently state
in interviews and tutorials that they use different plugin developers.

Now if you claim that aqua and nebula will give you the sound
of mixes and masters done with analog hw, that would require proof that
the same commercial music done in analog and then itb sounds the
same. The only such case that i have seen is when a few months back slate digital
had CLA doing this with a commercial release where CLA mixed
with hw and then with slate plugins and then a blinded
poll of about 800 people showed that they were split equally in preference
for the mixes.

Not to say that in principle similar could not be done with aqua/nebula or other
quality plugins, but for now claims about acustica of this nature are conjecture
and certainly acustica is not the sole purveyor of quality or analog-sounding
products.
Old 7th September 2018
  #16
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by consnyc View Post
Nope! commercial including ligh profile and award winning records
done itb are 99.99% NOT done with aqua and nebula
and the mixing and mastering engineeres working itb consistently state
in interviews and tutorials that they use different plugin developers.

Now if you claim that aqua and nebula will give you the sound
of mixes and masters done with analog hw, that would require proof that
the same commercial music done in analog and then itb sounds the
same. The only such case that i have seen is when a few months back slate digital
had CLA doing this with a commercial release where CLA mixed
with hw and then with slate plugins and then a blinded
poll of about 800 people showed that they were split equally in preference
for the mixes.

Not to say that in principle similar could not be done with aqua/nebula or other
quality plugins, but for now claims about acustica of this nature are conjecture
and certainly acustica is not the sole purveyor of quality or analog-sounding
products.

I don't find the notion that Acustica does analog better than most as conjecture as I have all the facts I need in my daily usage. Subjective, sure. I think you're missing one key ingredient to the mixes above which is what was used during tracking. Tracked with the tone and color you want and anything is possible. Heck I've watched Andrew Schepps mix vocals with Pro Tools Stock eq. If however you are tracking clean to digital from my Apollo, then I've found UAD and all the other developers I use daily just don't cut it for analog vibe more so for color and eq. It's not an all or nothing affair but to dismiss the strengths of Acustica's products and not even try them would be To the OP demo and don't be moved either way until then. It's lot easier to try them now. Good luck
Old 7th September 2018
  #17
Lives for gear
 
moon_unit's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by consnyc View Post
that would require proof that
the same commercial music done in analog and then itb sounds the
same. The only such case that i have seen is when a few months back slate digital
had CLA doing this with a commercial release where CLA mixed
with hw and then with slate plugins and then a blinded
poll of about 800 people showed that they were split equally in preference
for the mixes.
To be fair, the only reason we even know about this is because the outcome was favorable to certain stakeholders. We really don't have perfect information in other words. We only hear what certain people deem appropriate.

Either way it matters very little what some guy with grammies can do with certain tools. You just have to try tools out for yourself, shoot them out against one another, and see what works best to your own ears. There are no shortcuts around this.
Old 7th September 2018
  #18
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Asher Bay View Post
It's not an all or nothing affair but to dismiss the strengths of Acustica's products and not even try them would be To the OP demo and don't be moved either way until then. It's lot easier to try them now. Good luck
Asher, I agree that trying them is a good idea and using them
as one finds useful and to their hearts delight. All of that we are in perfect agreement.

Claiming however (as another poster did above, and most AA hard core fans do)
that they are the only way to get a professional
"like a record" sounding mix is with the present level
of evidence that I summarized above, a subjective view lacking
objective evidence, if not outright propaganda, and is also
in sharp contrast with the actual tools that the majors are using to make
the big time records.
Old 7th September 2018
  #19
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by moon_unit View Post
To be fair, the only reason we even know about this is because the outcome was favorable to certain stakeholders. We really don't have perfect information in other words. We only hear what certain people deem appropriate.
Not true, the whole poll was going on for quite some time hundreds of people
were following the topic and hundreds were voting before the poll closed and thus before the outcome became known. It could have turned either way.
This is not a selective outcome type of situation.


Quote:
Originally Posted by moon_unit View Post
Either way it matters very little what some guy with grammies can do with certain tools. You just have to try tools out for yourself, shoot them out against one another, and see what works best to your own ears. There are no shortcuts around this.
Is that so? If Rembrandt was using a certain type of color pigments
and certain palette of colors and certain painting surfaces
and certain brushes, and certain solvents and certain binding media, and
if one wants to create a painting that looks like a Rembrandt or
if one wants to restore a damaged Rembrandt, then one
has to use similar tools. Of course there is the other 90-95% which is
painting skill, however the claim that the only way to paint like
Rembrandt involves using none of the pigments/color/surfaces/brushes/
solvents/binders that Rembrandt used is at best dubious
and at worst lunacy (try, for example, to do a Rembrandt study with watercolor instead of oils and see what happens).
Old 7th September 2018
  #20
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by consnyc View Post
Asher, I agree that trying them is a good idea and using them
as one finds useful and to their hearts delight. All of that we are in perfect agreement.

Claiming however (as another poster did above, and most AA hard core fans do)
that they are the only way to get a professional
"like a record" sounding mix is with the present level
of evidence that I summarized above, a subjective view lacking
objective evidence, if not outright propaganda, and is also
in sharp contrast with the actual tools that the majors are using to make
the big time records.
These things happen is cycles. This isnt exclusive to Acustica. At one time it was Waves, then UAD for a long while, then Slate vs UAD, now Acustica. People have been making inflated claims about everything for what seems like forever in both hw and software debates. Im always genuinely curious why the rest of the community in general take it so personal against Acustica. I've seen the same claims in the PA, Slate, and UAD threads for years. If one were unhappy with the service provided thats another thing but there seems to be a dismissive nature towards them.

I think I'm tempered in my opinions so my take however, as well as I assume the majority of the hardcore AA fans is that certain tools just excel at a particular tasks. Imho Acustica excels at "sounding" like the hw they are sampled from. By extension, my claim would be that these plugins are the most hardware "sounding" plugins as opposed to "the best plugins period and you can't get competitive analog sounding mixes without them so sell your first born child!" Thats foolishness. I would say this though, those mixes done with algo plugins as you stated above tend to require way more processing in terms of plugin chaining then what I find necessary with Acustica plugins. Both ways are possible for sure.

That being said, if I wanted to get tight compression "quickly" that still sounded fantastic with no hassle I'd happily grab Fuse's new 25A compressor. For reverb I'd reach for EW Spaces 2 for "natural spaces" and maybe R4 for "lushness". Not because there arent comparable Acustica tools but these excel over those tools for this particular task.

In short, I think the appropriate argument for Acustica's tools is that they excel at "sounding" like hw but at a cost of course, financially and otherwise unfortunately. Are they the best plugins ever, God's gift to humanity to achieve a fantastic analog sounding mix, heck no. But it could make the journey with larger steps.
Old 7th September 2018
  #21
Lives for gear
 
moon_unit's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by consnyc View Post
Not true, the whole poll was going on for quite some time hundreds of people
were following the topic and hundreds were voting before the poll closed and thus before the outcome became known. It could have turned either way.
This is not a selective outcome type of situation.
Yes, but if you or I were to post a similar shootout, it would likely be deleted. This isn't a free and open forum from that standpoint. Only certain people get to do these things and under certain conditions, etc. in order to make it past the Moderator's delete button.

Quote:
Originally Posted by consnyc
The claim that the only way to paint like
Rembrandt involves using none of the pigments/color/surfaces/brushes/
solvents/binders that Rembrandt used is at best dubious
and at worst lunacy (try, for example, to do a Rembrandt study with watercolor instead of oils and see what happens).
Well unfortunately Rembrandt is no longer with us, so at the end of the day, if your goal is to make something that looks exactly like a Rembrandt, then use what gets you there. And if you run in to a situation where all of the original tools aren't at your disposal due to being prohibitively expensive, rare or both ... then it's up to you to use your own judgment as to what gets you closest

What I use for my Rembrandt might or might not work for you. Make a few test paintings yourself and decide what gets you closest.
Old 7th September 2018
  #22
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Asher Bay View Post

I m always genuinely curious why the rest of the community in general take it so personal against Acustica. I've seen the same claims in the PA, Slate, and UAD threads for years. If one were unhappy with the service provided that's another thing but there seems to be a dismissive nature towards them.
That is a very good question. For example I think that you are very balanced and moderate in your views but you are in the
minority among acustica fans.

I suspect that the majority of acustica fans became so enamored with these tools
(and have so little exposure to quality alternatives or maybe lack the skills to use them effectively? - i do not know)
that have been pathologically dismissive of other people who have a much more balanced or critical take.

For example, in every new acustica release there are dozens of bugs some very
serious and debilitating and some simply annoying and time consuming for users to fix.
This is not an accident, but a company policy:
release at least a plugin per month, ignore the beta testers cries for fixing problems, and
let the users find as many bugs as possible during a "pre-release"
1-month period, then fix as many as possible during that period and then move to the next release.
Often they will re-visit a plugin 1-2 years after the initial release and fix some problems but
typically introduce new bugs in the process, or not fix long standing problems.

Some people like myself find this utterly inexcusable. If I go to a restaurant and the soup has a cockroach
in it, I will be furious. The acustica restaurant serves each and every one of its soups with not one but many cockroaches
and the majority of the permanent patrons there (aka acustica fanbois) will tell you "stop complaining, the soup is delicious and
the chef will come and remove the cockroaches from your plate at some point". It is absurd if you think about it.

By analogy just like I do not care how delicious the soup is if it has bugs, I do not have the time or tolerance for
software bugs and expect that a decent software company will allocate enough time and resources to not deliver buggy software
at premium prices.

This attitude translates to many other issues with acustica (post-sales service, pricing, license transfers, memory and cpu inefficiency etc, etc)
and is afaic the fundamental reason why the acustica collective i not taken seriously by the majority of plugin users who end
up using other products.

Or maybe there is some other explanation, I do not know...
Old 7th September 2018
  #23
Quote:
Originally Posted by ilalin View Post
...really worth the hassle regarding CPU issues, authorizations, problems with latency?

Does anybody who has been dealing with these guys has seen an improvement with these issues during the years?

To me it seems like typical Italian business. Beautiful on the outside and problems after problems on the inside.
there is simply no substitution for some nebula stuff (AlexB Neve console emu of TimP compressors) so I deal with all the problems, it is worth.
Old 8th September 2018
  #24
Lives for gear
 
StoneyBCN's Avatar
 

"back in the day" I had a few aquas, N3, this and that. The sound was in a sense kinda HD. The workflow was impossible and not rewarding when I was forced to bounce down each EQ band one at a time... Things have moved on now, but I'm surprised at how little Nebula etc has developed in that time. This version 4 of the flagship product? Really?

Later, I got a lot more knowledgeable about audio, distortion, electronics, hardware, how to interpret real world physical, analogue data and how to verify accuracy in software processing. The bit that got me into AA recovery was learning about waveshaping distortion. Basically, if something is generating harmonics, it should be clipping (limiting) the signal. Its actually this limiting that creates harmonic distortion, not the other way around. This isn't an opinion.

Anyways... At that time, I learned how to tear plugins (and hardware) apart using analysis, tones, scopes, etc. I found that anything up until Crimson or Lemon or whatever, was never actually limiting or clipping or saturating at all (see their press releases around the time of those products). Frequency response from filtering - yes, and sometimes very HD, other times the results were questionable or entirely bizarre. But genuinely producing harmonics via actual clipping, like real-world electrical current limiting and saturation, was simply not present. It just tacked on a bunch of artificial harmonics to the signal, that had no direct effect at all on the shape of the wave. The test methods I refer to were all established on electrical engineer workbenches many generations before personal computing was a reality. The methods work exactly the same for both analogue and digital.

That's simply not how "analogue mojo" works. I was brutally disappointed but eventually saw things for what they are.

This is directly related to why their compressors often fail to perform. Compression, in mixing terms, is literally just waveshaping - taking chunks out of the waveform, exactly like any stock basic digital clipper. A mixing compressor is exactly that, just a waveshaping distortion, except with controllable parameters to make it respond dynamically across time. N3 et al was not doing even basic stock DAW waveshaping in its normal routine, let alone a far more complex routine of a mixing compressor.

Things have changed - they finally invented some ungainly, complex crossover thing that apparently "actually clips the signal", at long last. But does it really have to be so complicated to do something as rote as clip a waveform? That functionality has been there in DAW's since the beginning. It currently sounds like some very complex, gimmicky solutions for problems that have always had very simple solutions since day one.

I went into some of this on an AA thread here once. A well loved third party sampler privately warned me that people will not accept what I was saying, to expect pitch forks at dawn, but that most of his own releases were taking some very unconventional approaches with the sampling process in order to address this.

This whole experience lead me to starting a thread here about crafting circuit models using plugins. AA never comes up. There's about 9 pages of analysis of some of these things as found in other plugins.

I still got a couple of emulation plugins I lean on regularly, but I no longer believe that I couldn't mix if I only had stock DAW and freeware plugins. Going too far beyond "simply what is needed" is like an allergy for me now. If you want convincing analogue tones you just gotta get imaginative and apply some knowledge of analogue, and in doing so you might start noticing that many emulation plugins are kinda way too heavy handed in situations where stuff was already sounding good.

WRT Acoustica stuff I can totally believe that the results are probably fantastic in many cases, many happy users despite all the known difficulties - awesome. I certainly don't wanna spoil anyone's fun. In fact I think (for my circuit modelling interests) that this weekend I may try SteDal's inductor filters he just put out. Nebula phase distoetion tech should excel at that application IMO.

But since you're calling for insight and opinions, hopefully no AA users will take any umbrage with mine.

Happy mixing, using whatever you like best
Old 8th September 2018
  #25
Lives for gear
 
stinkyfingers's Avatar
 

These things are a joke...
Old 8th September 2018
  #26
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by stinkyfingers View Post
These things are a joke...
This post is a joke...
Old 8th September 2018
  #27
Lives for gear
 
brockorama's Avatar
 

Use what you like.

Don't use what you don't like.

It still amazes me when people take an hour out of their day to write a novel about why they don't like AA?? Like anyone cares?

Does anyone actually make any music anymore?
Old 8th September 2018
  #28
Lives for gear
 
moon_unit's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by stinkyfingers View Post
These things are a joke...
I don't know about that. My pet bats all tell me that the digital artifacts at nyquist sound warm and punchy.


Quote:
Originally Posted by brockorama View Post
Does anyone actually make any music anymore?
What is this "music" thing you speak of?
Old 8th September 2018
  #29
Lives for gear
 
StoneyBCN's Avatar
 

Some tend to care about the actual quality of the tools we invest in and use to make music with. Audio integrity is far more valuable to the commercial end user than an absolute historical accuracy of something arbitrary. That accuracy itself is also often empirically questionable, and the signal integrity sometimes more so, and so at some point one does indeed need to just get on with the music. For me, that requires workflow, flexibility, and stability. Anything that fits that bill, gets put to work. If it doesn't fit that bill, it eventually gets deleted and/or sold off. But the only person that will appreciate the difference is the person turning the knobs.

One more time for the chorus: use whatever suits your own needs
Old 8th September 2018
  #30
Lives for gear
 
StoneyBCN's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by moon_unit View Post
What is this "music" thing you speak of?
It's what we use to test our new plugins with.
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump